@@jeice13 , I used to say I was heterosexual until I saw a dude that was attractive. I don't think I magically turned bi at that moment. Pretty sure you can learn things about yourself and be mistaken about yourself.
I think Distributist comes out looking better in spite of the twisting of the words. His final point was really solid. ContraPoints was just trying to vocalise his train of thought in the moment to match his world view, and I think he has a lot to mull over after this discussion.
+KnightScribe Agreed; however it would have benefitted from a prior exchange of desired conversation outlines, (or clearer ones, if this did happen). Having a roughly agreed conversation path helps progress &flow.
Listening to this discussion it sounds to me like ContraPoints has never looked at a single statistic in his entire life. Birth rates dropping because of expenseive college? You have European countries like Norway with free college and paid maternity leave with brithrates at 1.5.
Right, it's definitely not a 1 to 1, causal relationship, necessarily. We would do well to remove the crippling weight of debt slavery from the backs of people who should be starting families, tho.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Probably not. People continued to have many children under even greater economic burdens, to be sure. However, this weight of debt is not just and not sustainable. It definitely doesn't help.
@@ALLHEART_ Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on getting people into debt and hundreds of billions more on getting them out of it, why can't we just make people get less education? Most graduates never end up working a job related to their degree. Something like three quarters of them end up in the generic labour pool, where employers can then afford to use degrees as a sorting algorithm. If we got the percentage of adults with college degrees down from 40% to something like 10%, and made employers use some other basis for picking who to hire (e.g. work sample tests, IQ tests or structured interviews, all of which are better predictors of work performance anyway), then society could not only reduce the burden of debt, but also save billions of dollars and millions of man-hours.
Hmm... *ponders intensely* Eh, I'll settle for all everyones becoming futanari hermaphrodite babes of various idealized builds and states of cat-girl and/or tentacle monster. And I'll use my Stand, Nasty Habits, to make it happen! *bad engrish* "TOTARRY, DUDE!"
@@AutumnintheNorth Eh No deal, I think anime girls are overrated, and I'd prefer to be more like Jonathon or Part 3 Jotaro Joestar. Edit: I'll even prefer to be like Part 3 Joseph Joestar over bishounen.
Great stream. I think the scenario Contrapoints is trying to assert wherein men and women CAN have a casual sex relationship is one in which only the woman has any real power and its very risky for a man. That is feminism showing its hand. She can at any moment accuse him of being manipulative. She can at any moment rescind her consent. Or she can at any moment decide it's more than just casual, or she can at any moment decide to say good bye with no hard feelings. The man is always at her behest in those relationships. The Roush V model was trying to reclaim some male power into the casual sex dynamic.
I’ll be expecting another three hour apology video from ContraPoints begging not to be canceled for this one. Please just spare me the theatrical nun costume
"Some responsibility to emotionally communicate themselves clearly." -contra on hook up culture. This is the problem. Can anyone possibly come up with a less specific stance than That? Hook ups are fine as long as they meet my totally subjective emotional standard that absolutely varies between person to person, both in how much emotion they feel and how much they communicate.... Also sets up a perfect stool out from under which any "enemy" of contras movement can be pulled... leaving them to hang. Further more, the insistence to tear down all trappings of western civilization only to replace it with, when they are prompted... "uh uh umm, I feel as if, sometimes maybe there could be nicer words... like... exchanged." Great. Militantly replacing concrete with milk toast.
Relationships are based entirely on emotions and subjectivity, so no, that is the advice that is most likely to minimize damage, communication and responsibility (I'd add honesty but that kind of goes along with responsibility) are the best bets to make sure everyone knows what they are getting into and no one is being taken advantage of. Tearing down the trappings of western culture is western culture, the history of the west is full of reform and revolution to the new normal that will also be changed after people realize the flaws and try again
I agree, relationships are based entirely on emotions and subjectivity. We're not talking about relationships. We're talking about Contra's proposed standard for giving a "relationship" a pass/fail. Contra's standard for delineating between an acceptable hook up and an assault. What I'm saying is that his standard isn't a standard at all. I agree with you about honesty. If I had a magic wand, I'd set things up to where everyone knew what they were getting into. I agree with your sentiment. HOWEVER, the problem here is any given encounter, I'll call it that since hook ups are hardly a relationship, can be completely kosher for one person and horrible for another. A dude could behave the EXACT same way and depending on the girl, it could range from sexy and adventurous to rude and uncomfortable. This is why, until something better is proposed, consent is the only acceptable standard. Did you consent? Simple. Did you honestly communicate your emotional intentions? A bit more complex of a question and hardly as quantifiable in a court room. To your point about tearing down the trappings of western culture, I disagree. You're certainly right to point out cultural innovation. The west has obviously evolved. Western European Barbarian savages of the Roman times to the first world is quite an evolution. I'd say you're mistaking cultural innovation for cultural destruction, though. There is a categorical difference between destroying a culture and building on top of the culture you were born into. Justice and the courtroom that attempts to deal in it are growths up out of the culture. That all men should be seen as equals in the court or that the king should be held as accountable as other men are innovations that came up out of the culture. What people like Contra, not necessarily Contra specifically but those of the same world view, engage in is not building onto the culture. That may have been what the broader left was doing half a century ago but now they have moved on to explicitly attack and dismantle the culture of the west. To try and make my already long post shorter than it would otherwise be: when I said, "concrete to milk toast," what I was trying to get at was the idea of tearing down a complex web of social norms that arose up out of the chaos and bloodshed of antiquity to create a much more peaceful and just civilization (compared to what was before it obviously) and replace it with, "uh, umm, I feel like maybe the answer is." Culture is inscribed on our DNA. It is the modern equivalent of the bonds of the tribe. We feel empty without a unifying culture. While I disagree with the Distributist on many things, in my view he is peg on when he talks about the cultural void many exist in today. Nerd-o toys do not a culture make. When your lore and the characters you love are owned by Disney, you know you have a problem.
I mean that's kind of the point, we wouldn't be having a conversation about consent if there was a cultural standard that applied equally all the time. Before the sexual revolution extra-marital sex didn't really discriminate as much between rape and sex, and this discussion is partly the result of people seeing the behaviors of past generations that where done in the shadows of history, instead being just a part of the mass culture and exposed to the light. So right now we are making up for lost time and having conversations and making standards for a time where sex isn't demonized and women are considered full people able to have autonomy with their own bodies. Right now we are able to recognize that responsibility, honesty and communication are really needed to keep people safe but the application isn't really defined as well as it should be, just asking for verbal consent directly is the best bet right now, but once we have some norms in place within our culture the the abuses will be less frequent and more clearly show a metric for whether certain actions are a criminal act or a social faux pas. For your next point, the ideas of today aren't really as unique as you think they are. Getting rid of slavery is a much bigger and controversial change in culture than say, critical theory and the rise of video games and comics as an art medium. There are also things that left leaning people are trying to destroy but we don't necessarily want to replace it with anything because it might be viewed as inherently harmful.Not replacing it with milk toast but with empty air, or removing the vestigial limbs that can harm the body but are there because of the societies we evolved from. Gender norms are one example (also not unique to the west, almost everything people complain is changing is not unique to western cultures), just because some trends appear around people of different gender, that doesn't mean we should enforce a proper way for them to act based on them, that can be extremely harmful to individuals that don't conform and a society that misses out on a great talent because the skills displayed were gendered, this also relies on the mostly western idea of individualism so it's not really destroying western ideas but applying them. For your last point, your beef isn't with culture but with capitalism, and it really isn't unique to our time. DiVinci, Victor Hugo, Mark Twain and Mary Shelly are thought of as artists and sharpers of culture today but their works are just as much a product as anything Disney churns out, the main difference is that most new art forms and culture is collaborative making any one person's contribution seem less significant whether that's actually true or not. In society, art is comodified but that doesn't necessarily make it less artistic and alot of the reason people think it is, is because rich people didn't like it when art stopped being their indicator of class and poor people were able to afford their status symbols, so they demonized new art as inferior.
There is a standard that applies equally all the time: consent. Unless you're a leftist college professor leading an inquisition against a drunk male student, in which case consent is irrelevant, get out. What you've done here is fall back. "Right now we are able to recognize that responsibility, honesty and communication are really needed to keep people safe but the application isn't really defined as well as it should be, just asking for verbal consent directly is the best bet right now, but once we have some norms in place within our culture the the abuses will be less frequent and more clearly show a metric for whether certain actions are a criminal act or a social faux pas." Your camp is the one pushing murky, ill-defined standards. That's where I took issue from moment one. You like to tell me what I misunderstand about history, which is a convenient power I must say, there is nothing more dangerous than establishing legal precedent based on whimsical feelings. Virtually no one defends rapists. What people defend are individuals under attack because a sexually liberated woman decides the next day that she should be able to withdraw her consent. This is a recipe for witch burning(Or in this case warlock burning). Creating standards that are susceptible to manipulation is folly. Subjective concepts like emotions and honesty leave a freight train sized hole for human tendencies... like gee Idk, lying. Humans of all creeds and colors and genders will lie for personal benefit. Moreso when it comes to their social status which evolved as a survival safety net. What you've done with the above quote is effectively say, "Yeah, well you're right consent is the most useful now but someday we'll have something better." Okay, well stop dismantling the concept of consent between two adults until you have a better system. The assertion of an argument and then retreating to your opponent's ground and claiming it as your own is tiresome. "For your next point, the ideas of today aren't really as unique as you think they are. Getting rid of slavery is a much bigger and controversial change in culture than say, critical theory and the rise of video games and comics as an art medium." I like video games and comics, I have no issue with them. I own several compendiums and have played thousands of hours of games from megaman X to WoW to Halo. I'm not some stodgey old Buckly-ite. Getting rid of slavery was an idea that arose from the culture. I'm an atheist but make no bones about the abolition movement being firmly rooted in Christian thinking. Banning slavery isn't a point for your anti western culture camp. Banning of slavery is an exclusively western phenomena. If anything, slavery is on the rise again as formerly weak powers are gaining strength. Further more, even if I granted you that the west was responsible for slavery via some imperialist critique, then the middle east has a massive body count of slaves to answer for. Finally, granting sovereignty and access to people formerly barred from your culture isn't dismantling your culture. It's building upon it. It's using your cultural ideas to modify and improve. "For your last point, your beef isn't with culture but with capitalism, and it really isn't unique to our time." These weird assertions about history and my lack of understanding is getting old. You don't know what I know. I don't know what you know. All I can do is address the argument that you present. Using rhetorical tricks, like asserting that your understanding of history is the one true understanding, is silly and doesn't go towards proving your point. Comparing Disney to Twain or Divinci is pretty rich, but I'll let that slide. My issue is not with Disney existing or with them telling the stories they do. My problem is with Disney, or insert your preferred corporate fiction, holding a supreme position in someone's hierarchy of importance. You're right, things like the role Disney plays have been around for some time. What has changed however is what people hold above it. If your only lore comes from something like World of Warcraft or the corporate abortion that is the new Star Wars trilogy, that's pretty sad. It's the mental equivalent of locking yourself in a room and ignoring the physical reality outside of it. In short, even as a materialist atheist with no pretensions about the supernatural, I strike huge issue with the idea that the majority of people are more concerned with fake history than real history. Fake generals, fake leaders, fake heroes, fake moral struggles. As to lumping Capitalism with Disney, my gosh could we have a 1000 year conversation at the issues with that. One, corporations are chartered by the state. Two, the money supply is controlled by the state. Three, the banks that cater to multinational leviathon corporations are bailed out when need be by the state. Interest rates, a crucial part of the business cycle and the growth of an economy, are controlled by the state. This is hardly a capitalistic economy. However, regardless of our disagreements on the merits of capitalism, I'll grant you that massive corporations buying state politicians is bad. "In society, art is comodified" Ironically, the high art of the past that the evil rich people horded for themselves is now all imperialist, white supremacist trash lol I want this art to be a commodity that all people value. I sort of addressed this above, but my issue is not with an perceived quality, it's with this 'art' having a monopolistic grasp on peoples' identity. Where they derive meaning, etc. Sorry if this is too long but you made a lot of points in a short span there. TL;DR - Provide a better standard for consent. I believe a strong, objective argument can be made that one's identity (in one's own mind) being little more than a star wars shirt with an X-wing on it is a bad thing. "Muh evil capitalism" while defending Disney is an interesting take.
nzxtMonster The ability to give consent while blackout drunk is a murky area because you might not be in a solid state of mind to give it. If both parties are drunk then it's even murkier. Consent sort of requires a sound mind and how much it is under the influence will influence what you are willing to do. Im not really defending Disney, but I don't like the assumption that the culture that the artists that work there create is irrelevant just because they work for a megacorporation. It's like saying the last supper isn't real culture because the church payed for it. I don't understand your insistence that thing like fan boys are a new phenomenon or necessarily bad. There have been groupies and their equivalents for a long time, pretty sure it is a creation of western culture (unless you count religion as a rabid fan boyism). It's perfectly harmless to really like something and buy paraphernalia for it, it is only a problem when it leads to stalking or harassment of creators and nonfans. The lord of the rings had fan boys long before it was made into the movies and their are still cult classics that have small but devoted fan bases that turn otherwise disappointing media into sucesses
If having children is about economics, why are poorest people most fertile compared to upper class despite they have worser access to kindergartens, schools, housing etc.? Back in the day upper class had at least 130% more children than lower class, often even 200%.
I think the argument is supposed to be that, from the point of view of a poor man, it's very difficult to raise children responsibly. Much easier to leave the mother and child as wards of the state and move on to another relationship. Of course, another possibility is to just constrain your reproduction. The middle- and upper classes do this a lot, and for silly reasons like "we can't bear _another_ set of football practices and PTA meetings" instead of really good reasons like "we can't afford to feed a child."
Yep, the rrality is that fertility drops as prosperity increases. The costs of parenthood increase exponentially with prosperity and decrease with the opposite, wihere the latter comes with direct government benefits instead. Perversely, prosperity ibcebtivizes against fertility, poverty incentivizes toward it.
I really liked this chat. Despite the fact that I disagreed with Contrapoints, he still had some good counter points. While I understood his point, I still disagree with them. However the mere fact that he put thought into what he said is great, and refreshing. I think this was a pretty good chat.
I came from the Contrapoints' side of things and while I think Distributionist's fears are misguided, they are very sincere and that's rare on internet these days. Whenever I look at characters like Sargon of Akkad, I feel like they care more about gaining fame than actually making their views heard and making good case for them.
+Better Dead Than Red Liberal? I don't think a man petitioning Universities to ban a field of study can be called a liberal. I agree he holds no convictions or beliefs, his views are tailored around annoying majority of people while retaining his core fan-base.
None of them are left wing? Seems to me like anti-feminist discourse is completely dominated by right wingers, they tend to dislike regulations and see any attempt at redistribution of capital as authoritarian, you can't really have left wing policies without these. Also, the article says 'liberal' professors not 'leftists'. It's important to distinguish between; leftists / progressives / liberals, I get called all these things on daily and I'm only one of them.
dia morphine %60+ of Sargon’s audience is on the left of the political spectrum and %40+ is on the right of the political spectrum. Sargon being in favour of some right wing positions doesn’t make him wholly right wing, it just means he holds some right wing positions. By your asinine logic if you don’t support Joe Stalin or Lenin you’re not TRULY “left wing”, your argument is nothing short of bullshit because he doesn’t adopt %100 of your movement it’s also a very sophist No True Scotsman.
You can be responsible about casual sex and still destroy the marriage market. So much of feminism seems predicated on the idea that people actually know what they want now or long term. That's seems pretty unrealistic to me. Also the idea that feminism is a market stabilizing force, as in "the secular version of Christianity," is another lol moment. Humans are happiest when they are integrated into meaningful communities. Our current setup fails in large part to create meaningful families or communities.
"So much of feminism seems predicated on the idea that people actually know what they want now or long term." Of course, and the traditional family model where you get married in your twenties or thirties and never have a sexual or cohabitative relationship with another person certainly doesn't rely on people knowing what they want for 60 plus years. That's sarcasm by the way.
Friended I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. "mainstream" feminism, at the very least, is designed to control. Followers of feminism can't see past the infallible arguments like patriarchy theory and tells them what they want like "equal pay".
I know I'm late here, sorry, but I don't see how those statements are justified. At every level I have an issue with the statement "Feminism seems predicated on people knowing what they want". The first being that I don't see how feminism, being the advocacy for women's rights and opportunities in efforts to make those two equal with men (not relevant to choices men and women might make beyond the opportunity to make the choice itself). I also don't think the idea that people don't know what they want is justified. I'd argue I know what I want more than anyone else knows what I want. And the implication of that, though not explicitly stated, would seem to be that women aren't capable of knowing what they want, so either someone else has to make decisions for them or we have to do nothing. If you see this a clarification would be great. If not it's fine obviously, it's an old comment and a lack of a reply doesn't mean your avoiding an argument.
So I came here straight from Contrapoints Rowling video and after listening to this and Contrapoint's earlier stuff, oh wow the Contrast is amazing. Quick witted Sharper speech Longer amount of time between cuts / edits Faster speech Focused eyes Watching the difference between then and now is jarring. I wonder how long it took the production team to find a halfway decent still to use as the thumbnail, because even in the one they found you can see the dark circles under the eyes through all the makeup.
1:24:00 I didn't think you would make this admission so explicit but you're right. That's exactly what a MGTOW would say. Finally someone gets it right. They would say that you have accepted the premise that women are the gatekeepers and tempo setters of relationships and now that they are completely sexually liberated they are setting a tempo that most men don't want. Then there is you asking "why don't the men just dance to this new tempo?" Men don't want to.
I got about 8 minutes in and then asked myself, "Why the hell am I listening to an atheist, crossdressing man with mental issues who is contesting the point that women are choosier than men in regards to their suitors?" You have to be ideologically blind to contest that.
1:25:17 "what they're (MGTOW) going to say is "I want casual sex and you're saying that I have to pursue a relationship to get casual sex, but women don't have to do that, and gay men don't have to do that and furthermore, if I start forming a relationship just to get casual sex then back out on it, you'll say that I'm being manipulative" " Wow, I mean I'm not even MGTOW myself but when you look at the situation this way you can definitely understand the frustration that they have with society and dating in particular. Profound bit of insight here in this debate.
SirGrips I think the major issue is what of a rapid transition it was - how much of a paradigm shift the decline in marriage was due to the sexual revolution. Marriage had been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It existed for a reason. The sexual revolution really enabled women to fully engage with their hypergamy. Monogamous marriage put a limitation on women's hypergamy and meant that men could often get married to women of equal sexual market value.
@Lord Thruxawe It wasn't so much that marriage put a cap on women's behavior as much as a lack of contraception and means for women's independence on male labor. Marriage actually has very little power. If it did, the divorce rate wouldn't have sky rocketed.
Good chat. I found Contrapoints stance on the elimination of machismo as completely untenable within the feminist framework. It simply does not have any moral support.
@@TheDistributistSo theoretically an ethical hookup would involve two parties both agreeing on the nature of the relationship being only casual sex. Problem is more often than not women would want more than just casual sex, so the most common constellation of ethical casual sex would be gay sex like in the example, sex in the bathroom of a gay bar. Perhaps there could be a case in the hot/high status matrix where a woman considers only sex and not relationship with a man who is hot, but not high status, provided said man doesn't mind the objectification...
Absolutely! As Karen Straughan put it in her "Men not marrying" video, women's desires good, man's desires bad. I laughed about it because I was joking about the rise of the WMAF relationship. Women will rant often about loser white guys who seek Asian women. Why won't they ask the Asian women ina WMAF relationship why they even bother to accept the guy?
Good conversation. The next time you have a talk with someone could you clarify a particular point that has an affirmative and negative defense, otherwise it's hard to tell if the conversation has been productive when the discussion is vague and all over the place. For instance, you could have headed the topic with "Was the sexual revolution bad for the family unit? Yes or no", or "Does the sexual revolution disadvantage both sexes in their biological and social life goals?". If I'm correct Contrapoints would agree with the various points from the video, but only because he believes that the sexual revolution is only at an intermediary point. In effect, more revolution is required. If that was what he was saying (I may be wrong), then it would have been nice to have that made more clear. Otherwise it was a nice civil discussion.
You both need a female historian's perspective. Allow me. Women most certainly did not sleep around as much as men prior to easy reliable birth control. Not because babies and the annoyance of raising them. (Most women love their children, regardless of who the father is.) BUT because of birth itself, being up until recently, a very risky business that often took the mother's life prior to modern medicine. Even now, a woman must accept the reality that when she gives birth, she is putting her life on the line. Even now, women will hesitate about it for that reason. So certainly in the past, when women knew of others who perished in childbirth (a sister, an aunt, sometimes even their own mothers), they wouldn't just frivolously put themselves in harms way for the sake of 'getting some.' Menstruation is a constant reminder of this life/death giving power of our bodies, something which is almost impossible to take lightly unless it's removed, which is what the 'pill' does. When you don't want to be sterile and statistical about this subject, you can always be biological and gross. It is a bit closer to reality for women at least.
>Most women love their children, regardless of who the father is. I don't get this. Wouldn't you consider a responsible choice about who the father of their children should be an expression of love? If a woman choses to sleep with, say, an unemployed alcoholic who will likely abandon her, how can she have her childrens best interest in mind, in the same way a woman sleeping with a reliable family man does?
+abc xyz Just like alcoholic men who ruin their own lives, many women also make life decisions that are not rational. About two hundred years ago it was widely considered/accepted that humans are rational. This has turned out to be false. You can explain a lot of human behavior with irrationality.
BULLSHIT, absolute bullshit. The fact is that rounding up 1 every 10000 births ends with the mother dead, I mean someone must be paraonid to fear that.
Tail of Spence so... You totally didn't stretch before you work out, because the risks of you pulling a muscle is really low and you don't pay atten to stories of your friends pulling muscles because it's so rare. why bother stretching and worrying about it?
Very Serious have you SEEN the process of childbirth? It's not the Iron Man Marathon, you don't get a ribbon for coming in under one hour. You are kidding yourself if you don't think women aren't making a conscious decision to avoid pain, a three month recovery that is barely getting over the bleeding, not to mention how long it takes to get back in shape, recover your health, etc, by avoiding childbirth or putting it off.
I fear that this discussion was dragged too easilyonto entirely secular terms of debate. Marriage is a moral and spiritual ideal. It has practical benefits to families and society, of course, but to defend it primarily on that basis misses the point. When the religious dimension is taken out, it becomes a lot easier to critique marriage on purely pragmatic or secular ethical terms. Contrapoints was basically saying 'you're saying marriage is the optimum system for society, but there's a lot of grounds to dispute that' - which from his point of view was a fair point.' To my mind, that is only one part of a much broader Catholic argument.
Monogamous societies are able to provide better social conditions to their children, experience less domestic violence, have higher birth rates, and are generally more stable due to the lack of young single men (as most of them would have life long partners) The practical benefits are undeniable, it is better for a society to be monogamous.
so, I'm the only one thinking this? that people just don't get married as often and don't have children as often because doing that is extremely expensive and there is no further motivation for it other than a societal want for reproduction lest the species extinguishes itself, all without actually giving any space for young coulples to have children? yes, men that have children and later get divorced lose everything and are fucked. women that have children and the father goes AWOL are fucked too. why? because people are expensive.
Elrolly is right on the money basically. Even with romantic relationships removed from the equation, the quality of friendships and family relationships is extremely poor in the modern world.
I think you're right to point out that money definitely plays a role in modern relationships and people's choice to have children. They find almost universally that in countries where people are affluent they have less children.
People have always been expensive. I don’t think there’s one slam dunk cause of falling birth rates but all the things mentioned here have contributed to it. Btw, from a historical perspective this is nothing new. Birth rates fell in the waning decades of the Roman Empire, too, for instance. But yes, in a modern, urban, industrialized society a child is a liability
I mean... ok, the distributist come from the school of "people is bad, society makes them good" while contrapoints comes from "people is good, society makes them bad". and that's an issue.
I honestly have no idea who is right, but tend to side with "people is good, society makes them bad" because I'm an atheist and I need to believe in something haha.
"people is good, society makes them bad" That makes a lot of sense. We were definitely at our peak when we were still shitting in fucking caves without fire.
"Also fuckoutta here with your 2007 youtube atheist bullshit about primitive goat whatever" A couple thousand years ago some zealous, xenophobic, middle eastern assholes conveniently wrote down their God's rules that just so happen to coincide with their beneficial desires. Rules that that your cult took from them and, also conveniently, cherry-picked, changed and modified throughout history as you saw fit. And you have the nerve to call that bullshit "objective morality". Piss off. "you don't even have a standard to judge why any behavior is preferable to another" "I get my morals from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions. That's how I determine what's moral. I get it from a foundation that says that my actions have an effect on the people around me, and theirs have an effect on me. And if we're gong to live cooperatively and share space we have to recognize that impact. My freedom to swing my arm ends at their nose. I have no right to impose my will over somebody elses will. They come from a understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority." - Matt Dillahunty Read as many times as you need. Your religion doesn't have morals, it has rules you must obey.
I have dipped my toes briefly in men rights pages. Mens rights are not like civil, women's or lgbt rights. Its not about equality or laying blame at someone else's feet. The part that attracted me was admitting that men have been trained to be emotionally guarded and men are responsible for that. And yeah the one or two incel types who hate women drove me away. But even as a pre m2f I hold with Laura straughn view of history that men were protecting women as they were valuable not oppressing them. I.e. women historically could not get loans is true. Because laws said that women were not legally responsible for personal debts. Their family or spouse was. Why would someone give credit to someone who had no obligation to repay. And men are told to suck it up and guard emotions and men's rights wanted to change that. I lost my mom recently. My sister in law and niece were given alot of sympathy and comfort. They were given flowers and cards. Losing my mom, grief expression is short, my response as man needs to be brief. I received 1 card and 6 texts messages expressing loss. Even as gay man trying to be in women's dominated hobby space like a sewing circle, doll collecting, or historical fiction and not treated as an outsider and even long term involvement the one man is token and never treated like everyone else.
25:00 - This whole 'grey divorce' idea just draws me closer to the idea that families should not just be the nuclear family structure, but also the extended family, like you might see in a cliche Greek/Italian movie with several generations living close by and heavily involved in each other's lives.
@@GRIFFIN1238that commercialization of society is part of the plan to destroy the family. The nuclear family is a stop on the road to family annihilation
I did, person I disagree with but not enough to call them a racist fuck. My family is from Annville, Kentucky in Jackson Co, Kentucky. Your concept of "...can't be certain (their children) are their own." doesn't mesh with rural america. THAT concept is a dog whistle for AA.
You may not like the source, but ""Almost two-thirds of single women raising kids on their own had been married or were still married, and the children's father had simply left. And despite the fact that most women who have children outside of marriage are in a romantic relationship with the child's father that continues throughout the pregnancy, in 2009, only 41% of single, custodial parents (mostly women) were paid the child support they were owed. Men seem to be the ones fucking up here." jezebel.com/5928235/unmarried-fathers-abandon-families-to-spare-their-own-delicate-feelings
Criticizing the puas approach in sexual dynamics, and as an example of toxic masculinity, is just the feminist way of deleveraging men's power and ability to ascend in the sexual marketplace by their own will. They want women to have all the power and choice when selecting men.
I actually thought about bringing up that phenomenon in favor of my argument! From what I've heard from FTM individuals the addition of high levels of testosterone does indeed effect their perspective, and does change the way they think, but it doesn't change everything about them. It is an influential factor, I conceed that, but it is not the only formative thing about how we think. Not all FTMs embrace "macho" culture or get jacked up or become bros. We're more than simply biologically determined automatons; there is an internal moral agency in ourselves that we have to come to terms with.
@@monolith94I do see what you're saying, I think that's the point; testoserone is not the only component of 'macho' behaviour but most likely the biggest contributor.
Thank you for this civil discussion. However, both of you actually strengthened my conviction that MGTOWs have a point, a good one as well, regardless of the (certainly negative) real world consequences of their worldview.
Der Doktorant mgtow is a somewhat nihilistic philosophy in some ways, but in others it's incredibly liberating. people seem to be very negative about mgtow, and I can understand by some of the pr they get. But, at the end of the day, true mgtow shouldn't care much for pr. One of the core tenets seems to be about rejecting societal expectations.
itsOculus - No, it's not. Unless you are referring to some bastardized version of feminism. The problem with MGTOW and most self-identified incels is that at the core of their belief system they are resentful towards women, and that's why they champion these causes. MGTOW isn't about equality, it's about blaming women for not being able to be with women. It would be different if it was a group of men that inherently weren't interested in sex, were interested in questioning cultural norms and expectations, wanted to call out gender roles, and wanted to advocate that you don't need a partner to be happy in life - but that's not what it is. They conflate all women with awful human beings, and as a result they are bitter and hateful towards all women, and they only exist as a group to cosign each others bullshit and to bring women down. I mean, fuck, right now on their reddit page, the first few posts: "Woman logic" "They're dirt" "They always lie" "Ever Notice how Sluts Never Admit when They are Wrong? Proverbs 30:20" "Fired an Entitled bitch today" “Don’t do it - she will take half your shit.” - Me as a financial adviser The last two especially shows how this shit has real world consequences. That isn't reasonable. That isn't acceptable. That shouldn't be defended. And that makes up 90%+ of their content. The incel subreddit was at least self-aware and people seemed to be more focused on themselves than blaming others.
People are not living much longer. This is an artifact of so many people making it to age 20. Life expectancy at age 20 has not gone up very much. Nearly all of the gain has been life expectancy at birth.
23 extremists disliked this stream. I don't really see why or how someone could dislike this, cause this was a pretty respectful conversation between two people who disagree with one another.
Contrapoints missed an opportunity to completely strawman you (since you honestly present classical Christian / Puritanical viewpoints here) and light that strawman on fire with a modicum of research into statistics. Still, it wound up being an interesting conversation even without that deviation that it could have taken. I’m glad you were on Warski and I found your channel sir.
Football Pharaoh I’m biased towards D, so naturally I feel like he made the stronger arguments here. I do like that it seemed to be more of a conversation though, not a straight contentious debate.
Puritanical Christianity is a reaction to the reconcilliation/confession culture inherent in Catholicism. Puritans hate us because we have no "ultimate cutoff line" beyond which you cannot be forgiven and we make it "too easy" according to them.
@@astonishedcat6857 To be honest it tends to be that between denominations either one makes it too easy or too hard in one's opinion. Considering how Jesus states that Sodom and Gomorrah have it easier on judgement than generation who at least tried to follow the rules they knew, it might be that divine justice works in more mysterious way than believes. Considering also that many of these being forgiven or cut-off didn't do actions in extent as Sodom or Gomorrah did. Sometimes it becomes strange hopscotch where similar action is heresy made by other denomination, but divinity when done by own. Nothing new under the sun.
I hope you still check the comments on old videos, I would like to follow up on my other post about the schizophrenic character on Marxism I left at the CuckPhilosophy stream. I noticed the same behavior with Contrapoints, in that they seem to be unaware about some big contradictions between presentation and action. So with Cuckphilosophy there was the point (put very crudely) that he said his philosophy wasn't about moralism, that Marxism is not about equality, but that he then tended to revert to basic moralistic liberal talking points. With Contra the same thing is going on. Here's why I think that (arguably unconsciously, a perfectly normal human trait) their philosophy is confused and disingenuous and why men shouldn't buy into it. I. Contra is obviously a semi-Marxist but in this vid they is indistinguishable from any milquetoast liberal. For example, They does not even know that birth rates are below replacement level, which is blatantly obvious knowledge available to anyone with any interest in the collective importance of demography. Their arguments are not based on what is necessary or healthy for society vis a vis humanity, but purely on what is pleasant for individuals themselves; they then assume (like any liberal) that what the individual wants is identical to what is good for humanity. II. Contra is partly a liberal because it is good for them personally. They say as much explicitly. They is not interested in birth rates, but supports the sexual revolution because it allows them sexual freedom: their reasoning hence seems to be based on the narrow interest of the minority group Contra belongs to (queers and fluid-gendered people). Now, there's nothing wrong with standing up for yourself. But it's also unfair to expect more normal persons like us (with a vested interest in more traditional sexuality which has served to maintain society in the past) to just go along with another's self-interest fully, even if that's bad for society as a whole, and us as an interest-group more specifically. III. My idea that Contra is (unconsciously) disingenuous and self-interested (just like any human being) is strengthened by my impression that Contra fulfills perfectly the cliché of the feminist that wants to give advice to men. Contra never, never, allows that a problem between men and women may have dual responsibility. It's always men's fault. If there's something unpleasant going on, that's just men being indoctrinated by the infamous Culture/Capitalism duo. And it'd be one thing if we they just said we are dicks and need to man up- no, it's even more emasculating. for Contra, we are just broken in general. Since 'toxic masculinity' has been rammed into us by the wider culture we are now ourselves indoctrinated into fundamentally poisonous behaviors that we can't escape from. At this point, I sighed and waited for the inevitable horrible advice, and wasn't disappointed. Contra advises men (incels) to start with 'female friendship', basically to warm women up to you in a non-threatening way before approaching sexually. Spoiler alert: Incels actually do this all the time. It's called a one-way ticket to the friend zone (I was actually surprised you didn't point this out). Actually saying someone should be friends with a woman before approaching is a. emasculating since it will lead to the weasel-behavior we know and love from guys in the friendzone. b. it's just useless advice where the man has to just hope that a woman will notice him or accept his approach from the friendzone (yeah right) just so women are 100% comfortable. I refuse to accept a world-view that claims to be egalitarian yet views my group in the abstract as the entire problem. IV. Contra has this funny schizophrenic left-wing trait where they use rhetoric Foucault himself criticized as domineering. The idea of 'toxic masculinity' is a classic. Contra pathologizes men in general, e.g. our 'unhealthy thinking' as culturally sick and therefore abnormal. What is abnormal is pushed 'out' of respectable society and has to be cured, even if that's in radical ways. Note how Contra says we need 'healthy values' or whatever. How is this to be accomplished? Well, all values, in whatever culture, are part of indoctrination where uncritical children absorb whatever authority figures and parents think is normal. Contra's logic implies, and I hope this doesn't sound hysterical, indoctrinating children, and using social pressure on adults, by a top-down political process: that's how you change values in a society that doesn't hold the values a policital movement doesn't like. Is it liberal? No, but that's just the schizophrenia of progressivism for you. TL;DR Contra does indeed speak a different language. They speak the language of a minority-group which wants to change societal culture in its own interest. There's nothing nefarious about this. People want society to be pleasant for the group they belong to, it's called interest politics and it's timeless and normal. What is deeply, deeply abnormal is when one group cloaks its interests as everyone's interests; claims other groups cause all collective problems; denies that the other groups may have conflicting interests. If you're a man, avoid buying into this rhetoric at all costs. Our interests are definitily not always feminist interests or minority interests and if we can't just accept we have nothing to say or claim. We should accept they have legitimate interests; what's disgusting and wrong is when we are made to believe we (as men) have none ourselves- that thinking we do means we are bad people or just deluded.
@@mateussiq1100 Third-world Marxism has very different foundations than first-world (modern) Marxism, as it's closer to types of collectivism and nationalism around in poor/post-colonial societies. But I think the mixing up of moralism with an ostensibly 'scientific' analysis goes on there as well. There, 'scientific' grounds for nationalism are offered up but the justification given in the end is that that's all okay because nationalism for victims is fine, while nationalism for oppressors is not. The 'Syrian Democratic Forces' (a name given to them by the Americans so their aid would go down better in the international press) mostly hold so much sympathy in the West because of being victimized Kurds, by Assad, Turks, etc. Uncle Ted said it best when he wrote that the Left just loves losers of any type. While that is a healthy emotion to an extent (charity and caring are good), it should have limits. In sum, I suspect your statement of simply being untrue, and that almost all Marxists are deeply moralistic. I have to say, I'm not very interested in a discussion with a communist. In my experience, communists are usually faux-radicals; a dull lot, lacking any sort of intellectual curiosity yet wanting to be seen as different, therefore taking the morality of the herd but taking it one step further and calling that 'radical'*, parrying all accusations with either a recourse to some arcane exegesis of Marx or Lenin, a personal attack, or the claim that some issue is suddenly much more complex than previously presented when proven wrong, 'not all Marxists' etc... (like you just said, honestly). In that sense, Marxism is a sort of intellectual labyrinth you can always find some escape in- probably why most Marxists I know hate the idea of falsifiability. Means discussions are usually fruitless. I'll stop being an ass now. Ff you do want to have a discussion in good faith, read the post I left under the Cuckph. vs Distributist vid and circle back to me. You'll understand where I'm coming from. *Ernst Jünger had a nice citation on that phenomenon: "Nowadays almost all parties call themselves 'radical', but now it just means 'boring'." In that sense, it is striking that the big left RUclipsrs stay on and monetized, while almost all the big right-wing channels have been purged from YT and Twitter, demonetized, blocked from financial services etc. Who do you think is really seen as 'radical' and threatening by the current elite, then? The only reason ole' Distributist is kept around is because he defangs himself.
@@s.396 i talk from a "third world" view, im from latin america. I agree with most of your points actually. I just disagree with the statement that marxism is necessarily moralist. i will see your comment
A point of historical clarification: Prostitution became *WAY* less common (and far less acceptable) during World War I, and thereafter. In the United States, prostitution was extremely common throughout the mid-to-late nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth. See Timothy J. Gilfoyle, City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790-1920. To understand how sexuality shifter during and around World War I, see Nancy K. Bristow, Making Men Moral: Social Engineering During the Great War, and Jeffrey P. Moran, Teaching Sex: The Shaping of Adolescence in the 20th Century.
Also, it's debatable that birth control was the reason for sexual liberalism in the 1920s, and it's debatable that the 1920s were actually a sexual revolution--historians of sexuality (myself included) use the term "sexual liberalism" instead. This is more accurate, because liberalism is still a situation in which power is in effect, even if it tends not to be the familiar "top-down" type of control. Specifically *social* and *cultural* forms of power become far more pervasive in the 1920s, with the rise of mass media (movies and magazines especially), advertising, and the related development of institutions like the high school (with the attendant development of popularity and new types of peer pressure), "dating" (which really gives rise to a modern dating market), etc. All of these institutions had major influences on sexual culture, and often not in "revolutionary" directions. Most cultural institutions remained under the control and influence of social conservatives with a Christian agenda, who shaped the content and messages of these institutions. See, as a prime example of this, the "Hays Code," which regulated Hollywood movies until 1969, all the while enforcing monogamous, sex-negative norms.
I actually feel sorry for everyone who thinks like Contrapoints. This isn't me being condescending or anything but there's a lot of double think coming from Contrapoints. He wants people to have casual sex but not have the consequences of such actions. Just sad to see a person with such an empty worldview.
I don't understand a worldview where sex is something that should have negative repercussions. It seems like a sad existence to think sexual activity needs some sort of tax. It implies a worldview that thinks that sex is inherently wrong
Dj Gamez Sex is holy like any other thing. It must be performed in the right context to glorify the Lord. Sex gives pleasure to married couples and children are made by it. Sex outside of marriage isn't seen wrong by Christians because merely think it's wrong. Sex outside of marriage is seen wrong because it actually has negative consequences. Not only do they negatively impact the individual, but it impacts the lineage of that person and the culture as a whole. Sex outside of marriage is one of the greatest problems human beings face and most people don't seem to realize that.
If you're trying to glorify the lord with your sexy-times then you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and most types of sex aren't reproductive. Their is nothing inherently wrong with making a holy porno for your apparently voyeuristic god but it is kind of narrow-minded to insist that it is the only way to have sex and everyone else is sexing wrong. Sex outside of marriage is not much different from sex inside of marriage and the negative consequences are either chance or/and irresponsibility depending on whether they used protection. You mention lineage like you think it's something that should mater in a democratically elected society that has no arbitrary "royal bloodline" so I do not understand what your point is there unless you think that people born out of wedlock are worse than people born inside it, just by the nature of them not being in a institution that humans created. The culture is fine, actually improved in almost every way, rape and sexual harassment is finally being taken seriously in industries that let it slide before (especially in entertainment, but even the catholic church seems a little less laissez faire about abuse allegations). People can chose how sexually active they are and whether they want to be married instead of being married off and it being considered a wifely duty to bang a guy you may not have chosen and may not even like. Everyone can have careers and contribute to the world with the talents they have instead of everything being gender segregated (which for some jobs and behaviors it still is but we are taking baby steps and that'll get better in the future)
Dj Gamez I didn't say sex was only for procreation. I also said it was for "pleasure for the married couple." Also I don't know if you saw the whole video but the Distributist brought up some real problems with promiscuity.
If you are dating and having sex with a person in our culture it is presumed that there is emotional involvement. It will be left unspoken too. He is making up excuses for why it's other person's fault for being too involved, not speaking clearly etc etc. I do not think he is aware of his own intentions, there might be some tricks his subconscious is playing with his rational mind.
As someone who did have casual sex, I don't see it as competing with having a family. There are two ways I experienced. The first was mutual attraction without any emotional attachments. It wasn't that different from playing a game together. We respected each others autonomy, wanted to make the experience enjoyable to each other, but we didn't expect or want anything beyond that. The other time, I was friends with my sexual partner and his boyfriend who are in an open relationship. While there was no romantic love, we would not have done it if we felt that the whole thing was causing an issue. While the sex was something we desired, the friendship and respect to their relationship was way more important. What I learned for me is that just having sex with an attractive stranger doesn't do much for me as I felt too interchangable. There was no emotional injury, it just felt hollow. Even if there is no romantic love, there needs to be the kind of love that makes you want to make this particular person happy.
Contra is a Grade A modern sophist, guilty of all the disingenuous he accuses his political opponents of. I'm glad you could at least tease out his hypocrisy, which may be worth giving him a platform.
The other issue with the prostitution point is that prostitution is and continues to be stigmatised pretty heavily, so in the same way as you could legally have had sex pre-marriage before, it was a massive social stigma.
About the birthrate thing, why should we Europeans be forced to have a lot of children because we need to replace the baby boom behemoth? What is inherently virtuous about having lots of kids? It's too late to catch the financial gut punch that those people being old is going to give us, so why breed for the sake of it? What is better about there being 10 billion people as opposed to 5?
I agree with parts of that I suppose. I just don't see why it ought to be imposed. Charity is virtuous, yet we don't feel the need to tell people that their lack of spending on charity is ruining society. And as far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to raise children, don't because you'll probably pump out emotionally neglected basket cases.
I guess, if it has some negative effects, then probably people will mention that and try to fix it. What I said previously has nothing to do with imposing, it states that it is virtuous to be opened to have kids and raise them.
I am well aware of the problems of an ageing population, but at least in my country it is too late to solve the issue. The old people that are now old will be a burden on younger generations now and if we have a new birthing boom it won't be in time to help shoulder the burden. If anything a panicked babyboom 2 might just reproduce this problem in a century. So we'll have to weather the storm of paying for all these people's care and try not to be too outwardly pleased when they all die. Are there any other issues with an ageing population that I'm missing out on? Maybe I'm not well informed enough on the subject of demographics. Or is there a problem unrelated to the social safety net?
"Casual sex" (and women's right to "choice" etc., presupposing that social life is like standing in a supermarket and choosing between this or that product) is just the extension of the global market into private life, where the norms of purely transactional interactions dominate. Defending it would in a reasonable world be recognised as the opposite of leftism, since it means defending naked capital-dominance over all aspects of human life. All casual sex, use-and-throw-away of human beings, is rape. It is considering another human being only in terms of your pleasure. Leftists today don't love freedom, they just hate culture.
Contrapoint seems uninformed on just about any relevant fact, relying entirely on unsubtantiated pre-suppositions.... He makes the exact same false point after 1:20:13 that was utterly debunked over an hour earlier: Sigh.
29:00 You think one of the most paternally invested species on the planet is biologically predisposed to abandon their children? I think your assumptions are inaccurate.
FishBallista r/K selection theory points out there can be variance in human mating strategies. Not everyone, everywhere, all the time is just one kind of "genetic human." Environment affects the expression of different gene sets allowing different behaviors to propagate, i.e. paternal investment. Some human groups are more selected for lower number of children / higher investment in each child strategies.
Yes definitely. Good nuance. Fathers are definitely predisposed to investing heavily in their children's upbringing but that amount is definitely going to vary based on environment. It's wrong to say that men are predisposed to abandoning their children since the usual evolutionary best strategy seems to have been/be heavy paternal investment.
You can make a good synthesis from the two statements as well. It wouldn't be a stretch to argue that high paternal investment and traditionally families carry extreme legal and fiscal penalties, reducing the desire for many to take that strategy to begin with.
I personally think the single-mother problem has to do in part with the expense of a two-parent household, and the advent of the housing crash, coupled with how custody laws work.
Gosh, i need to hear more leftists/progressives talking with sane conservatives like you. Need to break out of the echo chamber. Thank you so much for ypur perspective.
But seeing your more recent videos, its sad to see. A drift away from a point of understanding to a 'war' footing. Perhaps i expected too much from consrrvatism.
What do you mean? The war footing owes entirely to de-platforming and banning from the left. You think that I am the one who doesn’t want to talk to people like ContraPoints?
@@TheDistributist Ok. Is this about a specific incident/s? Perhaps I'm ignorant of those, on account of previously mentioned echo chamber. Mind directing me to these incidents or videos concerning them?
@@TheDistributist It seems like this Jame Allsup was a qhite supremacist who associated with white supremecists and advocated for more white supremecists in his government. That seems to be a justified reason to drplatform from private platforms. His publicly elected office has been curtailed but not elimintaed which also seems appropriate. This doesn't seem to be from the left, but decisions from corporations and public bodies that dont want to associate with white supremacists.
I respect both speakers. In the end I think the distributionist had the better of contrapoints because of the difficulty distinguishing Roosh V from sex-positive feminism on principled grounds.
Historically, small frontier town in the West were full of bordellos. A town of 3000 people might have 12 of them. The claim by dist that prior to the sexual revolution it was difficult to have sex outside of marriage needs a cite in my opinion
Andrew Penny have they made an impact on culture? or can they be seen as an accelerated extreme of cultural change? not necessarily something that has lasting change, but that is a result of a larger, but less than noticeable change (due to scale).
I don't know if you get to this point (I'm around min 47), but if sex is just any other act or commodity why does it matter if it's more respectful, etc, etc? In what basis are your making sex more "special" than anything else?
You both agree that men aren’t entitled to sex, but then at around the hour mark you both seem to implicitly assume women are entitled to marriage and children. Why the double standard?
Very coy. I can't tell whether the host would throw me: a) a match-making party b) respect when earned/disapproval when deserved c) into prison d) off a rooftop or e) into the Underworld
Is the Distributist: a.) a Russian Babushka? b.) a Victorian Gentleman of High-society? c.) an unforgiving judge with a roving commission? d.) a member of ISIS? e.) the God Hades? f.) all of the above? .....
Hey, I was nice - I left out conversion camp. I already defeated that fate worse than death. Others, it seems, have not been so lucky, perhaps. Victorians make me think of Ned Carson and the Wilde trials. Ah, the joys of being prosecuted by an old friend.
I don't, actually. I'm just giving you my impression of what it felt like at the time. (To be clear, I meant orientation, not faith.) It may have been a necessary way of thinking to defeat the attempted conversion, that dying would be better than letting them win. I do think there's a legitimate case to be made for the position, as at least that way one would avoid hurting innocent people. Your comparison seems unfair; isn't attempting to enforce conversion on an unwilling victim a radical version of any ideology? Besides, I'd call my would-have-been converters Radical Homophobes. My paradigm: Radical Islam(ism) wants to throw me off a building. Moderate Islam wants Radical Islam to throw me off a building, or at least keeps supporting them. The Christian(ist) equivalent, rather less deadly, is that the radicals (or extremists, if that's a better term) want to throw me into prison. The moderates are the ones who whisper, "We're Not All Like That," to us, but they keep voting for the ones who are. I don't object to being described as a GRA, but my only movement is to to free the G from LBT. Bi women and the trans folk are firmly in control of the alphabet soup, and, even when I support them, I don't want their agenda to be presented in my name.
The Distributist is a retired Hades, blending in with mortals, who was so nihilistic after decades in Victorian High Society that he became a Soviet Gulag judge, occasionally pulling double duty as a babushka for the locals, before resigning himself to life as a free-lance contractor for Islamic terror groups. Obviously.
Nobody ever brings up how in hunter-gatherer tribes, chimpanzees, etc. casual (gay) sex is for improving social bonding. Using the argument of "man being hedonistic in his natural state" ignores the fact that the current market of casual sex is very different than how it works in a small tribal community.
Also some more constructive criticism, the guest seems have these notions of what's good yet he doesn't seem to have a background on which to fall on these beliefs. Like when he talks about consent and Rush V's supposed dogged behavior towards women. This is so baffling to live a sexual revolution lifestyle then shame someone for attracting as many suitors as possible.
The trouble is that MGTOW speak in a way that non-MGTOW don't understand. There are premises that each accept that change the meaning of what is being said by each so that they talk past each other.
+jared sandoy I've copied this comment from elsewhere in this comment section. 1:24:00 I didn't think you would make this admission so explicit but you're right. That's exactly what a MGTOW would say. Finally someone gets it right. They would say that you have accepted the premise that women are the gatekeepers and tempo setters of relationships and now that they are completely sexually liberated they are setting a tempo that most men don't want. Then there is you asking "why don't the men just dance to this new tempo?" Men don't want to.
the issue for the distributist is manifestly down to feminism. Before the sexual revolution, women had no choice but to marry, and thus marriage rates were higher and women had to settle more. Is that good? I don't think so.
not technically forced, but before the 1970's it was much more difficult to be a self-sufficient woman, and I won't bore you with spelling out exactly what they were.
casual sex raises men's mate value. casual sex lowers women's mate value. feminism seeks to change this biological reality through culture. can it be done? i guess we'll find out.
Men who sleep around do not reek of desperation, which women in general, whether they admit it or not, find way more repulsive. There are exceptions of course.
FRIENDED FOREVER wrong, no women wants to be with he man that fucked 50 women. Man whores and players are only cool to jealous, lonely men. The kind that read pick up artist books, you know fuckboys? Lol
Jen.. it seems you have supported his claim by pointing out that the desperately lonely men have lower desirability than the man whore. You placed them as the only people looking up to the fuckboys; inadvertently describing a hierarchy.. im sure we agree those are both unhealthy extremes and therefore of limited use, except as low resolution descriptors.
oh, sorry, i just checked the other video you have with contra, they're there.. lol.. i know i wrote something about sexuality so i assumed there were here..
Contrapoints does credit to hir alma mater by acknowledging Catholics as a minority among US Christians and not requiring Distributist to first argue its status among the various divergent forms of the Jesus Movement.
FishBallista Pre-sexual revolution, women essentially didn't have much of a choice but to marry a man of roughly equal social status to them. This kept female hypergamy in check. Thus, in the age of free sex, low status men have been left out in the cold.
I don't know, you'll find in the American West and in other places where women were greatly outnumbered By men, low status men were also at a colossal reproductive disadvantage. You must also keep in mind that the staggering maternity death rates kept many well off men looking for a new a wife. It's kinda always sucked to be a male low on the totem pole.
i think the effect was decreased, but by no means do i think that it wasn't present. i think women have always had unrealistic demands in a mate since the dawn of time. i don't think that quality is new and i think that it has always been far stronger in women. i only think it slightly decreased it.
+jared sandoy Yet low status men continued to work towards achieving a family or at least children because there was actually a light at the end of the tunnel. What they were working for existed measurably and could be achieved even if it was unlikely. Now there is no expectation that marriage will provide any of the benefits to men that it used to. There is no reason to get married if you're male and want a family. It doesn't provide a guarantee of a family or even a reasonable certainty of one. Couple that with uncertain stimuli producing greater stress and pleasure responses than predictable stimuli and you have a recipe for utter avoidance of marriage and family by men. Women have asked or tacitly accepted such an imbalance of power in their favor that it is a deal men are rejecting in favor of sort of black market relationships which are harming men, women and society. Disempower women in marriages and create an expectation of reasonable certainty of a family from marriage for both halves of the relationship and men will use marriage again.
yeah. they worked toward the light at the end of the tunnel because the decrease i mentioned was sufficient to make getting a woman reasonably possible. not a woman on your level of attraction, but a woman. even back then you were INSANELY unlikely to get a women in your own league.
The question was why? There's 8 billion humans on the planet right now, and that number is still increasing. Why should I be worried about lower birthrates in the richest nations on the planet? Again, honest question - it clearly concerns you, and I'd be interested in seeing the working behind it.
Off the top of my head, I can give you one problem. The west has aging societies which entails a steady rise in the population of elderly retirees who depend on the working age population for social services. A birth rate that is significantly below replacement level - which the west on a whole is currently experiencing - eventually leads to the shrinkage in the working age population (the population that supports the previously mentioned population). That puts an increasing financial burden on a population that won't be able to carry that burden indefinitely . Unless you're in favor of gutting social services or killing off all the elderly - and I would presume you're probably not for either proposal - then you might consider this as a cause for concern. There's a reason why western governments - and even non-western governments experiencing low fertility rates - provide financial benefits to parents that have two or more children.
@Contrapoints "I'm not a woman" … seems the comment didn't age well.
bronze katana cowboy that’s because she’s a QUEEN bitch
Yeah he is a man
I mean nowadays she describes herself as “a woman who used to be a man” so
Its almost like the "always been a woman" thing is personal historical revisionism
@@jeice13 , I used to say I was heterosexual until I saw a dude that was attractive. I don't think I magically turned bi at that moment. Pretty sure you can learn things about yourself and be mistaken about yourself.
I watched this video years ago when I was a contrapoints fan. Thank god you helped me come to my senses.
Were you a fan because you were a progressive and are not now, or was it for some other reason?
@@Paul-A01 yeah, I was a progressive.
I love how polite the whole conversation is; it's refreshing.
unfortunately contrapoints is twisted a lot of distributist's statements though.
I think Distributist comes out looking better in spite of the twisting of the words. His final point was really solid. ContraPoints was just trying to vocalise his train of thought in the moment to match his world view, and I think he has a lot to mull over after this discussion.
i agree. he did sound dumb when he acknowledged rape culture, but otherwise all's good. turned out well.
+KnightScribe Agreed; however it would have benefitted from a prior exchange of desired conversation outlines, (or clearer ones, if this did happen). Having a roughly agreed conversation path helps progress &flow.
agreed
*civility intensifies*
Im watching this three years later and i didn't notice until i read the comments. Truly timeless content, you help me be a good Catholic sir!
I would love to see this conversation today, now that you're both so much more confident in yourselves.
Listening to this discussion it sounds to me like ContraPoints has never looked at a single statistic in his entire life.
Birth rates dropping because of expenseive college? You have European countries like Norway with free college and paid maternity leave with brithrates at 1.5.
Right, it's definitely not a 1 to 1, causal relationship, necessarily. We would do well to remove the crippling weight of debt slavery from the backs of people who should be starting families, tho.
@@ALLHEART_ it’s doesn’t appear to be a causal relationship at all
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Probably not. People continued to have many children under even greater economic burdens, to be sure. However, this weight of debt is not just and not sustainable. It definitely doesn't help.
@@ALLHEART_ it may be unjust and unsustainable, but that doesn’t make it less of a red herring.
@@ALLHEART_ Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on getting people into debt and hundreds of billions more on getting them out of it, why can't we just make people get less education?
Most graduates never end up working a job related to their degree. Something like three quarters of them end up in the generic labour pool, where employers can then afford to use degrees as a sorting algorithm.
If we got the percentage of adults with college degrees down from 40% to something like 10%, and made employers use some other basis for picking who to hire (e.g. work sample tests, IQ tests or structured interviews, all of which are better predictors of work performance anyway), then society could not only reduce the burden of debt, but also save billions of dollars and millions of man-hours.
It was very refreshing to hear to people debate that have different views and yet were polite and able to find common ground now and again.
The easy fix to this is for all women to be anime girls.
As soon as all men become bishounen, you've got yourself a deal.
shit. i wish i was an anime girl
Hmm...
*ponders intensely*
Eh, I'll settle for all everyones becoming futanari hermaphrodite babes of various idealized builds and states of cat-girl and/or tentacle monster. And I'll use my Stand, Nasty Habits, to make it happen! *bad engrish* "TOTARRY, DUDE!"
@@AutumnintheNorth Eh No deal, I think anime girls are overrated, and I'd prefer to be more like Jonathon or Part 3 Jotaro Joestar.
Edit: I'll even prefer to be like Part 3 Joseph Joestar over bishounen.
Well get there some day
Great stream. I think the scenario Contrapoints is trying to assert wherein men and women CAN have a casual sex relationship is one in which only the woman has any real power and its very risky for a man. That is feminism showing its hand. She can at any moment accuse him of being manipulative. She can at any moment rescind her consent. Or she can at any moment decide it's more than just casual, or she can at any moment decide to say good bye with no hard feelings. The man is always at her behest in those relationships. The Roush V model was trying to reclaim some male power into the casual sex dynamic.
I’ll be expecting another three hour apology video from ContraPoints begging not to be canceled for this one. Please just spare me the theatrical nun costume
Lol, maybe if this debate happened in 2021
"Some responsibility to emotionally communicate themselves clearly." -contra on hook up culture.
This is the problem. Can anyone possibly come up with a less specific stance than That? Hook ups are fine as long as they meet my totally subjective emotional standard that absolutely varies between person to person, both in how much emotion they feel and how much they communicate....
Also sets up a perfect stool out from under which any "enemy" of contras movement can be pulled... leaving them to hang.
Further more, the insistence to tear down all trappings of western civilization only to replace it with, when they are prompted... "uh uh umm, I feel as if, sometimes maybe there could be nicer words... like... exchanged."
Great. Militantly replacing concrete with milk toast.
Relationships are based entirely on emotions and subjectivity, so no, that is the advice that is most likely to minimize damage, communication and responsibility (I'd add honesty but that kind of goes along with responsibility) are the best bets to make sure everyone knows what they are getting into and no one is being taken advantage of.
Tearing down the trappings of western culture is western culture, the history of the west is full of reform and revolution to the new normal that will also be changed after people realize the flaws and try again
I agree, relationships are based entirely on emotions and subjectivity. We're not talking about relationships. We're talking about Contra's proposed standard for giving a "relationship" a pass/fail. Contra's standard for delineating between an acceptable hook up and an assault. What I'm saying is that his standard isn't a standard at all. I agree with you about honesty. If I had a magic wand, I'd set things up to where everyone knew what they were getting into. I agree with your sentiment.
HOWEVER, the problem here is any given encounter, I'll call it that since hook ups are hardly a relationship, can be completely kosher for one person and horrible for another. A dude could behave the EXACT same way and depending on the girl, it could range from sexy and adventurous to rude and uncomfortable. This is why, until something better is proposed, consent is the only acceptable standard. Did you consent? Simple. Did you honestly communicate your emotional intentions? A bit more complex of a question and hardly as quantifiable in a court room.
To your point about tearing down the trappings of western culture, I disagree. You're certainly right to point out cultural innovation. The west has obviously evolved. Western European Barbarian savages of the Roman times to the first world is quite an evolution. I'd say you're mistaking cultural innovation for cultural destruction, though. There is a categorical difference between destroying a culture and building on top of the culture you were born into. Justice and the courtroom that attempts to deal in it are growths up out of the culture. That all men should be seen as equals in the court or that the king should be held as accountable as other men are innovations that came up out of the culture.
What people like Contra, not necessarily Contra specifically but those of the same world view, engage in is not building onto the culture. That may have been what the broader left was doing half a century ago but now they have moved on to explicitly attack and dismantle the culture of the west.
To try and make my already long post shorter than it would otherwise be: when I said, "concrete to milk toast," what I was trying to get at was the idea of tearing down a complex web of social norms that arose up out of the chaos and bloodshed of antiquity to create a much more peaceful and just civilization (compared to what was before it obviously) and replace it with, "uh, umm, I feel like maybe the answer is."
Culture is inscribed on our DNA. It is the modern equivalent of the bonds of the tribe. We feel empty without a unifying culture. While I disagree with the Distributist on many things, in my view he is peg on when he talks about the cultural void many exist in today. Nerd-o toys do not a culture make. When your lore and the characters you love are owned by Disney, you know you have a problem.
I mean that's kind of the point, we wouldn't be having a conversation about consent if there was a cultural standard that applied equally all the time. Before the sexual revolution extra-marital sex didn't really discriminate as much between rape and sex, and this discussion is partly the result of people seeing the behaviors of past generations that where done in the shadows of history, instead being just a part of the mass culture and exposed to the light. So right now we are making up for lost time and having conversations and making standards for a time where sex isn't demonized and women are considered full people able to have autonomy with their own bodies. Right now we are able to recognize that responsibility, honesty and communication are really needed to keep people safe but the application isn't really defined as well as it should be, just asking for verbal consent directly is the best bet right now, but once we have some norms in place within our culture the the abuses will be less frequent and more clearly show a metric for whether certain actions are a criminal act or a social faux pas.
For your next point, the ideas of today aren't really as unique as you think they are. Getting rid of slavery is a much bigger and controversial change in culture than say, critical theory and the rise of video games and comics as an art medium. There are also things that left leaning people are trying to destroy but we don't necessarily want to replace it with anything because it might be viewed as inherently harmful.Not replacing it with milk toast but with empty air, or removing the vestigial limbs that can harm the body but are there because of the societies we evolved from. Gender norms are one example (also not unique to the west, almost everything people complain is changing is not unique to western cultures), just because some trends appear around people of different gender, that doesn't mean we should enforce a proper way for them to act based on them, that can be extremely harmful to individuals that don't conform and a society that misses out on a great talent because the skills displayed were gendered, this also relies on the mostly western idea of individualism so it's not really destroying western ideas but applying them.
For your last point, your beef isn't with culture but with capitalism, and it really isn't unique to our time. DiVinci, Victor Hugo, Mark Twain and Mary Shelly are thought of as artists and sharpers of culture today but their works are just as much a product as anything Disney churns out, the main difference is that most new art forms and culture is collaborative making any one person's contribution seem less significant whether that's actually true or not. In society, art is comodified but that doesn't necessarily make it less artistic and alot of the reason people think it is, is because rich people didn't like it when art stopped being their indicator of class and poor people were able to afford their status symbols, so they demonized new art as inferior.
There is a standard that applies equally all the time: consent. Unless you're a leftist college professor leading an inquisition against a drunk male student, in which case consent is irrelevant, get out. What you've done here is fall back.
"Right now we are able to recognize that responsibility, honesty and communication are really needed to keep people safe but the application isn't really defined as well as it should be, just asking for verbal consent directly is the best bet right now, but once we have some norms in place within our culture the the abuses will be less frequent and more clearly show a metric for whether certain actions are a criminal act or a social faux pas."
Your camp is the one pushing murky, ill-defined standards. That's where I took issue from moment one. You like to tell me what I misunderstand about history, which is a convenient power I must say, there is nothing more dangerous than establishing legal precedent based on whimsical feelings. Virtually no one defends rapists. What people defend are individuals under attack because a sexually liberated woman decides the next day that she should be able to withdraw her consent. This is a recipe for witch burning(Or in this case warlock burning). Creating standards that are susceptible to manipulation is folly. Subjective concepts like emotions and honesty leave a freight train sized hole for human tendencies... like gee Idk, lying. Humans of all creeds and colors and genders will lie for personal benefit. Moreso when it comes to their social status which evolved as a survival safety net.
What you've done with the above quote is effectively say, "Yeah, well you're right consent is the most useful now but someday we'll have something better." Okay, well stop dismantling the concept of consent between two adults until you have a better system. The assertion of an argument and then retreating to your opponent's ground and claiming it as your own is tiresome.
"For your next point, the ideas of today aren't really as unique as you think they are. Getting rid of slavery is a much bigger and controversial change in culture than say, critical theory and the rise of video games and comics as an art medium."
I like video games and comics, I have no issue with them. I own several compendiums and have played thousands of hours of games from megaman X to WoW to Halo. I'm not some stodgey old Buckly-ite.
Getting rid of slavery was an idea that arose from the culture. I'm an atheist but make no bones about the abolition movement being firmly rooted in Christian thinking. Banning slavery isn't a point for your anti western culture camp. Banning of slavery is an exclusively western phenomena. If anything, slavery is on the rise again as formerly weak powers are gaining strength. Further more, even if I granted you that the west was responsible for slavery via some imperialist critique, then the middle east has a massive body count of slaves to answer for. Finally, granting sovereignty and access to people formerly barred from your culture isn't dismantling your culture. It's building upon it. It's using your cultural ideas to modify and improve.
"For your last point, your beef isn't with culture but with capitalism, and it really isn't unique to our time."
These weird assertions about history and my lack of understanding is getting old. You don't know what I know. I don't know what you know. All I can do is address the argument that you present. Using rhetorical tricks, like asserting that your understanding of history is the one true understanding, is silly and doesn't go towards proving your point.
Comparing Disney to Twain or Divinci is pretty rich, but I'll let that slide. My issue is not with Disney existing or with them telling the stories they do. My problem is with Disney, or insert your preferred corporate fiction, holding a supreme position in someone's hierarchy of importance. You're right, things like the role Disney plays have been around for some time. What has changed however is what people hold above it. If your only lore comes from something like World of Warcraft or the corporate abortion that is the new Star Wars trilogy, that's pretty sad. It's the mental equivalent of locking yourself in a room and ignoring the physical reality outside of it. In short, even as a materialist atheist with no pretensions about the supernatural, I strike huge issue with the idea that the majority of people are more concerned with fake history than real history. Fake generals, fake leaders, fake heroes, fake moral struggles.
As to lumping Capitalism with Disney, my gosh could we have a 1000 year conversation at the issues with that. One, corporations are chartered by the state. Two, the money supply is controlled by the state. Three, the banks that cater to multinational leviathon corporations are bailed out when need be by the state. Interest rates, a crucial part of the business cycle and the growth of an economy, are controlled by the state. This is hardly a capitalistic economy. However, regardless of our disagreements on the merits of capitalism, I'll grant you that massive corporations buying state politicians is bad.
"In society, art is comodified"
Ironically, the high art of the past that the evil rich people horded for themselves is now all imperialist, white supremacist trash lol I want this art to be a commodity that all people value. I sort of addressed this above, but my issue is not with an perceived quality, it's with this 'art' having a monopolistic grasp on peoples' identity. Where they derive meaning, etc.
Sorry if this is too long but you made a lot of points in a short span there.
TL;DR - Provide a better standard for consent. I believe a strong, objective argument can be made that one's identity (in one's own mind) being little more than a star wars shirt with an X-wing on it is a bad thing. "Muh evil capitalism" while defending Disney is an interesting take.
nzxtMonster
The ability to give consent while blackout drunk is a murky area because you might not be in a solid state of mind to give it. If both parties are drunk then it's even murkier. Consent sort of requires a sound mind and how much it is under the influence will influence what you are willing to do.
Im not really defending Disney, but I don't like the assumption that the culture that the artists that work there create is irrelevant just because they work for a megacorporation. It's like saying the last supper isn't real culture because the church payed for it.
I don't understand your insistence that thing like fan boys are a new phenomenon or necessarily bad. There have been groupies and their equivalents for a long time, pretty sure it is a creation of western culture (unless you count religion as a rabid fan boyism). It's perfectly harmless to really like something and buy paraphernalia for it, it is only a problem when it leads to stalking or harassment of creators and nonfans. The lord of the rings had fan boys long before it was made into the movies and their are still cult classics that have small but devoted fan bases that turn otherwise disappointing media into sucesses
That was refreshingly polite and interesting. You should do more discussions like this one!
Thanks
If by polite you mean passive aggressive backhanded compliments, sure.
If having children is about economics, why are poorest people most fertile compared to upper class despite they have worser access to kindergartens, schools, housing etc.?
Back in the day upper class had at least 130% more children than lower class, often even 200%.
I think the argument is supposed to be that, from the point of view of a poor man, it's very difficult to raise children responsibly. Much easier to leave the mother and child as wards of the state and move on to another relationship.
Of course, another possibility is to just constrain your reproduction. The middle- and upper classes do this a lot, and for silly reasons like "we can't bear _another_ set of football practices and PTA meetings" instead of really good reasons like "we can't afford to feed a child."
@@OptimalOwl I joke about what birth rates would be if "Can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" was a law.
Yep, the rrality is that fertility drops as prosperity increases. The costs of parenthood increase exponentially with prosperity and decrease with the opposite, wihere the latter comes with direct government benefits instead.
Perversely, prosperity ibcebtivizes against fertility, poverty incentivizes toward it.
I really liked this chat. Despite the fact that I disagreed with Contrapoints, he still had some good counter points. While I understood his point, I still disagree with them. However the mere fact that he put thought into what he said is great, and refreshing.
I think this was a pretty good chat.
Hey my nigga!~♡♡♡
I came from the Contrapoints' side of things and while I think Distributionist's fears are misguided, they are very sincere and that's rare on internet these days. Whenever I look at characters like Sargon of Akkad, I feel like they care more about gaining fame than actually making their views heard and making good case for them.
+Better Dead Than Red Liberal? I don't think a man petitioning Universities to ban a field of study can be called a liberal. I agree he holds no convictions or beliefs, his views are tailored around annoying majority of people while retaining his core fan-base.
None of them are left wing? Seems to me like anti-feminist discourse is completely dominated by right wingers, they tend to dislike regulations and see any attempt at redistribution of capital as authoritarian, you can't really have left wing policies without these.
Also, the article says 'liberal' professors not 'leftists'. It's important to distinguish between; leftists / progressives / liberals, I get called all these things on daily and I'm only one of them.
dia morphine %60+ of Sargon’s audience is on the left of the political spectrum and %40+ is on the right of the political spectrum.
Sargon being in favour of some right wing positions doesn’t make him wholly right wing, it just means he holds some right wing positions.
By your asinine logic if you don’t support Joe Stalin or Lenin you’re not TRULY “left wing”, your argument is nothing short of bullshit because he doesn’t adopt %100 of your movement it’s also a very sophist No True Scotsman.
You can be responsible about casual sex and still destroy the marriage market. So much of feminism seems predicated on the idea that people actually know what they want now or long term. That's seems pretty unrealistic to me. Also the idea that feminism is a market stabilizing force, as in "the secular version of Christianity," is another lol moment. Humans are happiest when they are integrated into meaningful communities. Our current setup fails in large part to create meaningful families or communities.
"So much of feminism seems predicated on the idea that people actually know what they want now or long term."
Of course, and the traditional family model where you get married in your twenties or thirties and never have a sexual or cohabitative relationship with another person certainly doesn't rely on people knowing what they want for 60 plus years. That's sarcasm by the way.
Not my fault that you can't realize this. Maybe you should think more carefully.
Friended I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. "mainstream" feminism, at the very least, is designed to control. Followers of feminism can't see past the infallible arguments like patriarchy theory and tells them what they want like "equal pay".
i hope you know i was only joking with you. there are problems on both sides of this argument.
I know I'm late here, sorry, but I don't see how those statements are justified. At every level I have an issue with the statement "Feminism seems predicated on people knowing what they want". The first being that I don't see how feminism, being the advocacy for women's rights and opportunities in efforts to make those two equal with men (not relevant to choices men and women might make beyond the opportunity to make the choice itself). I also don't think the idea that people don't know what they want is justified. I'd argue I know what I want more than anyone else knows what I want. And the implication of that, though not explicitly stated, would seem to be that women aren't capable of knowing what they want, so either someone else has to make decisions for them or we have to do nothing. If you see this a clarification would be great. If not it's fine obviously, it's an old comment and a lack of a reply doesn't mean your avoiding an argument.
The amount of mental gymnastics contra points needs to go through to rationalize his version of hook up culture is hilarious.
not really. there’s an obvious difference between a hookup which is mutually understood to be noncommittal and straight up manipulating someone.
@@Jaximous that missed the point entirely. ContraPoints was trying to rationalize away Dave’s incredibly valid market analogy
So I came here straight from Contrapoints Rowling video and after listening to this and Contrapoint's earlier stuff, oh wow the Contrast is amazing.
Quick witted
Sharper speech
Longer amount of time between cuts / edits
Faster speech
Focused eyes
Watching the difference between then and now is jarring. I wonder how long it took the production team to find a halfway decent still to use as the thumbnail, because even in the one they found you can see the dark circles under the eyes through all the makeup.
1:24:00 I didn't think you would make this admission so explicit but you're right. That's exactly what a MGTOW would say. Finally someone gets it right. They would say that you have accepted the premise that women are the gatekeepers and tempo setters of relationships and now that they are completely sexually liberated they are setting a tempo that most men don't want. Then there is you asking "why don't the men just dance to this new tempo?" Men don't want to.
Distributist kinda cornered Contrapoints at the end there. The ideas are conflicting.
What even is grape culture? Women regretting a one night stand days later?
I got about 8 minutes in and then asked myself, "Why the hell am I listening to an atheist, crossdressing man with mental issues who is contesting the point that women are choosier than men in regards to their suitors?" You have to be ideologically blind to contest that.
1:25:17 "what they're (MGTOW) going to say is "I want casual sex and you're saying that I have to pursue a relationship to get casual sex, but women don't have to do that, and gay men don't have to do that and furthermore, if I start forming a relationship just to get casual sex then back out on it, you'll say that I'm being manipulative" "
Wow, I mean I'm not even MGTOW myself but when you look at the situation this way you can definitely understand the frustration that they have with society and dating in particular. Profound bit of insight here in this debate.
Fuck everyone pursuing "casual sex."
Welcome to another reason I argue for letting sexwork be legal. No more relationships being created on false terms.
It was not just Catholics, but rather religious people in general.
That what SirGrips?
That predicted the worst effects of the Sexual Revolution.
SirGrips I think the major issue is what of a rapid transition it was - how much of a paradigm shift the decline in marriage was due to the sexual revolution. Marriage had been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It existed for a reason. The sexual revolution really enabled women to fully engage with their hypergamy. Monogamous marriage put a limitation on women's hypergamy and meant that men could often get married to women of equal sexual market value.
@Lord Thruxawe It wasn't so much that marriage put a cap on women's behavior as much as a lack of contraception and means for women's independence on male labor. Marriage actually has very little power. If it did, the divorce rate wouldn't have sky rocketed.
Or anyone right wing.
Good chat. I found Contrapoints stance on the elimination of machismo as completely untenable within the feminist framework. It simply does not have any moral support.
Contra c’mon! Mass incarceration has had a devastating effect on the African American family.
+
@@trenchantarchbishop5759 They said the same thing about the Irish, and it is equivocal that you would immediately jump to it being a lost cause.
@@mochilover7053 1 maybe 2 irrlevant its a what about ism
@@mochilover7053 A
@@mochilover7053 B
We have unwittingly incentivised single motherhood through the welfare state. That's another factor.
Arguably one of the biggest factors, if you consider incentives to be a big part of reproductive strategy...
LBJ’s “Great Society” destroyed the black community
individualism is kinda cringe, not gonna lie
I hear criticisms of individuality. However, I have to wonder what benefit rigid conformism did for China.
@@skylinefeverthese are not the only options. Old Europe is the model
Im amazed how cordial this is
Basicly Contra is trying to say hookup culture is ok whenever a female wants only sex, but not ok whenever the male does.
Yes
@@TheDistributistSo theoretically an ethical hookup would involve two parties both agreeing on the nature of the relationship being only casual sex. Problem is more often than not women would want more than just casual sex, so the most common constellation of ethical casual sex would be gay sex like in the example, sex in the bathroom of a gay bar. Perhaps there could be a case in the hot/high status matrix where a woman considers only sex and not relationship with a man who is hot, but not high status, provided said man doesn't mind the objectification...
Absolutely!
As Karen Straughan put it in her "Men not marrying" video, women's desires good, man's desires bad.
I laughed about it because I was joking about the rise of the WMAF relationship. Women will rant often about loser white guys who seek Asian women. Why won't they ask the Asian women ina WMAF relationship why they even bother to accept the guy?
Good conversation. The next time you have a talk with someone could you clarify a particular point that has an affirmative and negative defense, otherwise it's hard to tell if the conversation has been productive when the discussion is vague and all over the place. For instance, you could have headed the topic with "Was the sexual revolution bad for the family unit? Yes or no", or "Does the sexual revolution disadvantage both sexes in their biological and social life goals?".
If I'm correct Contrapoints would agree with the various points from the video, but only because he believes that the sexual revolution is only at an intermediary point. In effect, more revolution is required. If that was what he was saying (I may be wrong), then it would have been nice to have that made more clear. Otherwise it was a nice civil discussion.
You have to assume these people are emotionally invested in a number of falsehoods in order to get anywhere with them.
You both need a female historian's perspective. Allow me. Women most certainly did not sleep around as much as men prior to easy reliable birth control. Not because babies and the annoyance of raising them. (Most women love their children, regardless of who the father is.) BUT because of birth itself, being up until recently, a very risky business that often took the mother's life prior to modern medicine. Even now, a woman must accept the reality that when she gives birth, she is putting her life on the line. Even now, women will hesitate about it for that reason. So certainly in the past, when women knew of others who perished in childbirth (a sister, an aunt, sometimes even their own mothers), they wouldn't just frivolously put themselves in harms way for the sake of 'getting some.' Menstruation is a constant reminder of this life/death giving power of our bodies, something which is almost impossible to take lightly unless it's removed, which is what the 'pill' does. When you don't want to be sterile and statistical about this subject, you can always be biological and gross. It is a bit closer to reality for women at least.
>Most women love their children, regardless of who the father is.
I don't get this. Wouldn't you consider a responsible choice about who the father of their children should be an expression of love? If a woman choses to sleep with, say, an unemployed alcoholic who will likely abandon her, how can she have her childrens best interest in mind, in the same way a woman sleeping with a reliable family man does?
+abc xyz
Just like alcoholic men who ruin their own lives, many women also make life decisions that are not rational.
About two hundred years ago it was widely considered/accepted that humans are rational. This has turned out to be false.
You can explain a lot of human behavior with irrationality.
BULLSHIT, absolute bullshit.
The fact is that rounding up 1 every 10000 births ends with the mother dead, I mean someone must be paraonid to fear that.
Tail of Spence so... You totally didn't stretch before you work out, because the risks of you pulling a muscle is really low and you don't pay atten to stories of your friends pulling muscles because it's so rare. why bother stretching and worrying about it?
Very Serious have you SEEN the process of childbirth? It's not the Iron Man Marathon, you don't get a ribbon for coming in under one hour. You are kidding yourself if you don't think women aren't making a conscious decision to avoid pain, a three month recovery that is barely getting over the bleeding, not to mention how long it takes to get back in shape, recover your health, etc, by avoiding childbirth or putting it off.
I fear that this discussion was dragged too easilyonto entirely secular terms of debate. Marriage is a moral and spiritual ideal. It has practical benefits to families and society, of course, but to defend it primarily on that basis misses the point. When the religious dimension is taken out, it becomes a lot easier to critique marriage on purely pragmatic or secular ethical terms. Contrapoints was basically saying 'you're saying marriage is the optimum system for society, but there's a lot of grounds to dispute that' - which from his point of view was a fair point.' To my mind, that is only one part of a much broader Catholic argument.
And it is such a moral and spiritual ideal that countless devoted Christians just can't help but have several of them!
@@olajuwon021 That wouldn't happen if the right to divorce wasn't a thing.
@@olajuwon021 the failure of particular individuals to adhere to a moral code and the failure of a moral code are two separate things
@@glof2553 Agree totally my man
Monogamous societies are able to provide better social conditions to their children, experience less domestic violence, have higher birth rates, and are generally more stable due to the lack of young single men (as most of them would have life long partners)
The practical benefits are undeniable, it is better for a society to be monogamous.
so, I'm the only one thinking this? that people just don't get married as often and don't have children as often because doing that is extremely expensive and there is no further motivation for it other than a societal want for reproduction lest the species extinguishes itself, all without actually giving any space for young coulples to have children? yes, men that have children and later get divorced lose everything and are fucked. women that have children and the father goes AWOL are fucked too. why? because people are expensive.
Elrolly is right on the money basically. Even with romantic relationships removed from the equation, the quality of friendships and family relationships is extremely poor in the modern world.
I think you're right to point out that money definitely plays a role in modern relationships and people's choice to have children. They find almost universally that in countries where people are affluent they have less children.
People have always been expensive. I don’t think there’s one slam dunk cause of falling birth rates but all the things mentioned here have contributed to it. Btw, from a historical perspective this is nothing new. Birth rates fell in the waning decades of the Roman Empire, too, for instance. But yes, in a modern, urban, industrialized society a child is a liability
I mean... ok, the distributist come from the school of "people is bad, society makes them good" while contrapoints comes from "people is good, society makes them bad". and that's an issue.
true
I honestly have no idea who is right, but tend to side with "people is good, society makes them bad" because I'm an atheist and I need to believe in something haha.
"we have morality from God"
No, you have morality from humans who *claimed* that their morality comes from God.
"people is good, society makes them bad"
That makes a lot of sense. We were definitely at our peak when we were still shitting in fucking caves without fire.
"Also fuckoutta here with your 2007 youtube atheist bullshit about primitive goat whatever"
A couple thousand years ago some zealous, xenophobic, middle eastern assholes conveniently wrote down their God's rules that just so happen to coincide with their beneficial desires. Rules that that your cult took from them and, also conveniently, cherry-picked, changed and modified throughout history as you saw fit. And you have the nerve to call that bullshit "objective morality". Piss off.
"you don't even have a standard to judge why any behavior is preferable to another"
"I get my morals from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions. That's how I determine what's moral. I get it from a foundation that says that my actions have an effect on the people around me, and theirs have an effect on me. And if we're gong to live cooperatively and share space we have to recognize that impact. My freedom to swing my arm ends at their nose. I have no right to impose my will over somebody elses will. They come from a understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority."
- Matt Dillahunty
Read as many times as you need.
Your religion doesn't have morals, it has rules you must obey.
He still had his real voice. Sad.
I have dipped my toes briefly in men rights pages.
Mens rights are not like civil, women's or lgbt rights. Its not about equality or laying blame at someone else's feet. The part that attracted me was admitting that men have been trained to be emotionally guarded and men are responsible for that. And yeah the one or two incel types who hate women drove me away.
But even as a pre m2f I hold with Laura straughn view of history that men were protecting women as they were valuable not oppressing them. I.e. women historically could not get loans is true. Because laws said that women were not legally responsible for personal debts. Their family or spouse was. Why would someone give credit to someone who had no obligation to repay.
And men are told to suck it up and guard emotions and men's rights wanted to change that. I lost my mom recently. My sister in law and niece were given alot of sympathy and comfort. They were given flowers and cards.
Losing my mom, grief expression is short, my response as man needs to be brief. I received 1 card and 6 texts messages expressing loss.
Even as gay man trying to be in women's dominated hobby space like a sewing circle, doll collecting, or historical fiction and not treated as an outsider and even long term involvement the one man is token and never treated like everyone else.
The hypothetical mgtow at the end had the soundest arguments.
25:00 - This whole 'grey divorce' idea just draws me closer to the idea that families should not just be the nuclear family structure, but also the extended family, like you might see in a cliche Greek/Italian movie with several generations living close by and heavily involved in each other's lives.
Although I do acknowledge the difficulty of that due to relocation for work being much more commonplace nowadays.
@@GRIFFIN1238that commercialization of society is part of the plan to destroy the family. The nuclear family is a stop on the road to family annihilation
Really enjoying these discussions man
Men in low income communities are abandoning children they can't be certain are their own.
that's where I was going with this
The Distributist The problem there is a breech of good faith. The contract is one of the few times a woman communicates with a man on his terms.
+xbowmanx why don't you read "Hillbilly Elegy," you racist fuck
I did, person I disagree with but not enough to call them a racist fuck. My family is from Annville, Kentucky in Jackson Co, Kentucky. Your concept of "...can't be certain (their children) are their own." doesn't mesh with rural america. THAT concept is a dog whistle for AA.
You may not like the source, but ""Almost two-thirds of single women raising kids on their own had been married or were still married, and the children's father had simply left. And despite the fact that most women who have children outside of marriage are in a romantic relationship with the child's father that continues throughout the pregnancy, in 2009, only 41% of single, custodial parents (mostly women) were paid the child support they were owed. Men seem to be the ones fucking up here." jezebel.com/5928235/unmarried-fathers-abandon-families-to-spare-their-own-delicate-feelings
I like to listen to this debate at .75 speed. It’s like one of those conversations at a party or a bar right before closing.
I’m listening to it at 1.5 speed lol
@@arlolarso9343 I think I listen to most thing’s faster the 1 speed
Criticizing the puas approach in sexual dynamics, and as an example of toxic masculinity, is just the feminist way of deleveraging men's power and ability to ascend in the sexual marketplace by their own will. They want women to have all the power and choice when selecting men.
Indeed. I like when Karen Straughan mocks feminism by calling it "Women's desires good, men's desires bad."
It's weird hearing ((Nate's)? Can't remember dead name) voice after all this time.
Boasting male machismo is not necessarily a consequence of high testosterone levels. You show correlation but not causation.
Talk to an F to M transsexual about that correlation.
I actually thought about bringing up that phenomenon in favor of my argument! From what I've heard from FTM individuals the addition of high levels of testosterone does indeed effect their perspective, and does change the way they think, but it doesn't change everything about them. It is an influential factor, I conceed that, but it is not the only formative thing about how we think. Not all FTMs embrace "macho" culture or get jacked up or become bros. We're more than simply biologically determined automatons; there is an internal moral agency in ourselves that we have to come to terms with.
@@monolith94I do see what you're saying, I think that's the point; testoserone is not the only component of 'macho' behaviour but most likely the biggest contributor.
@Ernestine I watched that too
Thank you for this civil discussion. However, both of you actually strengthened my conviction that MGTOWs have a point, a good one as well, regardless of the (certainly negative) real world consequences of their worldview.
Der Doktorant mgtow is a somewhat nihilistic philosophy in some ways, but in others it's incredibly liberating. people seem to be very negative about mgtow, and I can understand by some of the pr they get. But, at the end of the day, true mgtow shouldn't care much for pr. One of the core tenets seems to be about rejecting societal expectations.
Glad you enjoyed it
mgtow is feminism for men
itsOculus - No, it's not. Unless you are referring to some bastardized version of feminism. The problem with MGTOW and most self-identified incels is that at the core of their belief system they are resentful towards women, and that's why they champion these causes. MGTOW isn't about equality, it's about blaming women for not being able to be with women.
It would be different if it was a group of men that inherently weren't interested in sex, were interested in questioning cultural norms and expectations, wanted to call out gender roles, and wanted to advocate that you don't need a partner to be happy in life - but that's not what it is. They conflate all women with awful human beings, and as a result they are bitter and hateful towards all women, and they only exist as a group to cosign each others bullshit and to bring women down.
I mean, fuck, right now on their reddit page, the first few posts:
"Woman logic"
"They're dirt"
"They always lie"
"Ever Notice how Sluts Never Admit when They are Wrong? Proverbs 30:20"
"Fired an Entitled bitch today"
“Don’t do it - she will take half your shit.” - Me as a financial adviser
The last two especially shows how this shit has real world consequences. That isn't reasonable. That isn't acceptable. That shouldn't be defended. And that makes up 90%+ of their content. The incel subreddit was at least self-aware and people seemed to be more focused on themselves than blaming others.
^ Happily surprised to see a reasonable comment. Well said. :)
When it comes to sex both fall into concubescence. The devil really knows their weakness and plays both like an director of an orchestra .
This is pretty cool :) two of my favourite video producers talking!! Any plans for future conversations?
Somehow not surprised that yet another male feminist is super concerned that women aren't more willing to drunk and hook up with them...
People are not living much longer. This is an artifact of so many people making it to age 20. Life expectancy at age 20 has not gone up very much. Nearly all of the gain has been life expectancy at birth.
Happy to see people with strongly different opinions being civil in public discussion, even if I fall strongly to one side.
23 extremists disliked this stream. I don't really see why or how someone could dislike this, cause this was a pretty respectful conversation between two people who disagree with one another.
Contrapoints missed an opportunity to completely strawman you (since you honestly present classical Christian / Puritanical viewpoints here) and light that strawman on fire with a modicum of research into statistics.
Still, it wound up being an interesting conversation even without that deviation that it could have taken. I’m glad you were on Warski and I found your channel sir.
I like that he watched your videos before the discussion as well. It reflects well on his intentions coming in to this discussion.
Who do you feel won this debate?
Football Pharaoh I’m biased towards D, so naturally I feel like he made the stronger arguments here. I do like that it seemed to be more of a conversation though, not a straight contentious debate.
Puritanical Christianity is a reaction to the reconcilliation/confession culture inherent in Catholicism. Puritans hate us because we have no "ultimate cutoff line" beyond which you cannot be forgiven and we make it "too easy" according to them.
@@astonishedcat6857 To be honest it tends to be that between denominations either one makes it too easy or too hard in one's opinion. Considering how Jesus states that Sodom and Gomorrah have it easier on judgement than generation who at least tried to follow the rules they knew, it might be that divine justice works in more mysterious way than believes. Considering also that many of these being forgiven or cut-off didn't do actions in extent as Sodom or Gomorrah did.
Sometimes it becomes strange hopscotch where similar action is heresy made by other denomination, but divinity when done by own. Nothing new under the sun.
I hope you still check the comments on old videos, I would like to follow up on my other post about the schizophrenic character on Marxism I left at the CuckPhilosophy stream. I noticed the same behavior with Contrapoints, in that they seem to be unaware about some big contradictions between presentation and action.
So with Cuckphilosophy there was the point (put very crudely) that he said his philosophy wasn't about moralism, that Marxism is not about equality, but that he then tended to revert to basic moralistic liberal talking points. With Contra the same thing is going on. Here's why I think that (arguably unconsciously, a perfectly normal human trait) their philosophy is confused and disingenuous and why men shouldn't buy into it.
I. Contra is obviously a semi-Marxist but in this vid they is indistinguishable from any milquetoast liberal. For example, They does not even know that birth rates are below replacement level, which is blatantly obvious knowledge available to anyone with any interest in the collective importance of demography. Their arguments are not based on what is necessary or healthy for society vis a vis humanity, but purely on what is pleasant for individuals themselves; they then assume (like any liberal) that what the individual wants is identical to what is good for humanity.
II. Contra is partly a liberal because it is good for them personally. They say as much explicitly. They is not interested in birth rates, but supports the sexual revolution because it allows them sexual freedom: their reasoning hence seems to be based on the narrow interest of the minority group Contra belongs to (queers and fluid-gendered people). Now, there's nothing wrong with standing up for yourself. But it's also unfair to expect more normal persons like us (with a vested interest in more traditional sexuality which has served to maintain society in the past) to just go along with another's self-interest fully, even if that's bad for society as a whole, and us as an interest-group more specifically.
III. My idea that Contra is (unconsciously) disingenuous and self-interested (just like any human being) is strengthened by my impression that Contra fulfills perfectly the cliché of the feminist that wants to give advice to men. Contra never, never, allows that a problem between men and women may have dual responsibility. It's always men's fault. If there's something unpleasant going on, that's just men being indoctrinated by the infamous Culture/Capitalism duo. And it'd be one thing if we they just said we are dicks and need to man up- no, it's even more emasculating. for Contra, we are just broken in general. Since 'toxic masculinity' has been rammed into us by the wider culture we are now ourselves indoctrinated into fundamentally poisonous behaviors that we can't escape from. At this point, I sighed and waited for the inevitable horrible advice, and wasn't disappointed. Contra advises men (incels) to start with 'female friendship', basically to warm women up to you in a non-threatening way before approaching sexually. Spoiler alert: Incels actually do this all the time. It's called a one-way ticket to the friend zone (I was actually surprised you didn't point this out). Actually saying someone should be friends with a woman before approaching is a. emasculating since it will lead to the weasel-behavior we know and love from guys in the friendzone. b. it's just useless advice where the man has to just hope that a woman will notice him or accept his approach from the friendzone (yeah right) just so women are 100% comfortable. I refuse to accept a world-view that claims to be egalitarian yet views my group in the abstract as the entire problem.
IV. Contra has this funny schizophrenic left-wing trait where they use rhetoric Foucault himself criticized as domineering. The idea of 'toxic masculinity' is a classic. Contra pathologizes men in general, e.g. our 'unhealthy thinking' as culturally sick and therefore abnormal. What is abnormal is pushed 'out' of respectable society and has to be cured, even if that's in radical ways. Note how Contra says we need 'healthy values' or whatever. How is this to be accomplished? Well, all values, in whatever culture, are part of indoctrination where uncritical children absorb whatever authority figures and parents think is normal. Contra's logic implies, and I hope this doesn't sound hysterical, indoctrinating children, and using social pressure on adults, by a top-down political process: that's how you change values in a society that doesn't hold the values a policital movement doesn't like. Is it liberal? No, but that's just the schizophrenia of progressivism for you.
TL;DR Contra does indeed speak a different language. They speak the language of a minority-group which wants to change societal culture in its own interest. There's nothing nefarious about this. People want society to be pleasant for the group they belong to, it's called interest politics and it's timeless and normal. What is deeply, deeply abnormal is when one group cloaks its interests as everyone's interests; claims other groups cause all collective problems; denies that the other groups may have conflicting interests. If you're a man, avoid buying into this rhetoric at all costs. Our interests are definitily not always feminist interests or minority interests and if we can't just accept we have nothing to say or claim. We should accept they have legitimate interests; what's disgusting and wrong is when we are made to believe we (as men) have none ourselves- that thinking we do means we are bad people or just deluded.
bump
Just saw this, well put
i know this video is very old . but not all marxists follow this ideology, especially not in the third world.
@@mateussiq1100 Third-world Marxism has very different foundations than first-world (modern) Marxism, as it's closer to types of collectivism and nationalism around in poor/post-colonial societies. But I think the mixing up of moralism with an ostensibly 'scientific' analysis goes on there as well. There, 'scientific' grounds for nationalism are offered up but the justification given in the end is that that's all okay because nationalism for victims is fine, while nationalism for oppressors is not. The 'Syrian Democratic Forces' (a name given to them by the Americans so their aid would go down better in the international press) mostly hold so much sympathy in the West because of being victimized Kurds, by Assad, Turks, etc. Uncle Ted said it best when he wrote that the Left just loves losers of any type. While that is a healthy emotion to an extent (charity and caring are good), it should have limits. In sum, I suspect your statement of simply being untrue, and that almost all Marxists are deeply moralistic.
I have to say, I'm not very interested in a discussion with a communist. In my experience, communists are usually faux-radicals; a dull lot, lacking any sort of intellectual curiosity yet wanting to be seen as different, therefore taking the morality of the herd but taking it one step further and calling that 'radical'*, parrying all accusations with either a recourse to some arcane exegesis of Marx or Lenin, a personal attack, or the claim that some issue is suddenly much more complex than previously presented when proven wrong, 'not all Marxists' etc... (like you just said, honestly). In that sense, Marxism is a sort of intellectual labyrinth you can always find some escape in- probably why most Marxists I know hate the idea of falsifiability. Means discussions are usually fruitless.
I'll stop being an ass now. Ff you do want to have a discussion in good faith, read the post I left under the Cuckph. vs Distributist vid and circle back to me. You'll understand where I'm coming from.
*Ernst Jünger had a nice citation on that phenomenon: "Nowadays almost all parties call themselves 'radical', but now it just means 'boring'." In that sense, it is striking that the big left RUclipsrs stay on and monetized, while almost all the big right-wing channels have been purged from YT and Twitter, demonetized, blocked from financial services etc. Who do you think is really seen as 'radical' and threatening by the current elite, then? The only reason ole' Distributist is kept around is because he defangs himself.
@@s.396 i talk from a "third world" view, im from latin america. I agree with most of your points actually. I just disagree with the statement that marxism is necessarily moralist. i will see your comment
ContraPoints really didn't have any good responses.
They never do
@@TheDistributist it was almost awkward how bad their arguments were. No wonder most lefties don't debate at all.
Great conversation guys!
A point of historical clarification:
Prostitution became *WAY* less common (and far less acceptable) during World War I, and thereafter. In the United States, prostitution was extremely common throughout the mid-to-late nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth.
See Timothy J. Gilfoyle, City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790-1920.
To understand how sexuality shifter during and around World War I, see Nancy K. Bristow, Making Men Moral: Social Engineering During the Great War, and Jeffrey P. Moran, Teaching Sex: The Shaping of Adolescence in the 20th Century.
Also, it's debatable that birth control was the reason for sexual liberalism in the 1920s, and it's debatable that the 1920s were actually a sexual revolution--historians of sexuality (myself included) use the term "sexual liberalism" instead. This is more accurate, because liberalism is still a situation in which power is in effect, even if it tends not to be the familiar "top-down" type of control. Specifically *social* and *cultural* forms of power become far more pervasive in the 1920s, with the rise of mass media (movies and magazines especially), advertising, and the related development of institutions like the high school (with the attendant development of popularity and new types of peer pressure), "dating" (which really gives rise to a modern dating market), etc. All of these institutions had major influences on sexual culture, and often not in "revolutionary" directions. Most cultural institutions remained under the control and influence of social conservatives with a Christian agenda, who shaped the content and messages of these institutions. See, as a prime example of this, the "Hays Code," which regulated Hollywood movies until 1969, all the while enforcing monogamous, sex-negative norms.
@@ericrogers6364 Are you conservative?
This whole video is Emotions and Speculation vs Facts
Padrone The universal line used by numbskulls who don't have anything of value to say, so they start waving idea that facts are pom their side.
I actually feel sorry for everyone who thinks like Contrapoints. This isn't me being condescending or anything but there's a lot of double think coming from Contrapoints. He wants people to have casual sex but not have the consequences of such actions. Just sad to see a person with such an empty worldview.
Yeah that's more or less my sentiment as well.
I don't understand a worldview where sex is something that should have negative repercussions. It seems like a sad existence to think sexual activity needs some sort of tax. It implies a worldview that thinks that sex is inherently wrong
Dj Gamez Sex is holy like any other thing. It must be performed in the right context to glorify the Lord. Sex gives pleasure to married couples and children are made by it.
Sex outside of marriage isn't seen wrong by Christians because merely think it's wrong. Sex outside of marriage is seen wrong because it actually has negative consequences. Not only do they negatively impact the individual, but it impacts the lineage of that person and the culture as a whole.
Sex outside of marriage is one of the greatest problems human beings face and most people don't seem to realize that.
If you're trying to glorify the lord with your sexy-times then you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and most types of sex aren't reproductive. Their is nothing inherently wrong with making a holy porno for your apparently voyeuristic god but it is kind of narrow-minded to insist that it is the only way to have sex and everyone else is sexing wrong.
Sex outside of marriage is not much different from sex inside of marriage and the negative consequences are either chance or/and irresponsibility depending on whether they used protection.
You mention lineage like you think it's something that should mater in a democratically elected society that has no arbitrary "royal bloodline" so I do not understand what your point is there unless you think that people born out of wedlock are worse than people born inside it, just by the nature of them not being in a institution that humans created.
The culture is fine, actually improved in almost every way, rape and sexual harassment is finally being taken seriously in industries that let it slide before (especially in entertainment, but even the catholic church seems a little less laissez faire about abuse allegations). People can chose how sexually active they are and whether they want to be married instead of being married off and it being considered a wifely duty to bang a guy you may not have chosen and may not even like. Everyone can have careers and contribute to the world with the talents they have instead of everything being gender segregated (which for some jobs and behaviors it still is but we are taking baby steps and that'll get better in the future)
Dj Gamez I didn't say sex was only for procreation. I also said it was for "pleasure for the married couple."
Also I don't know if you saw the whole video but the Distributist brought up some real problems with promiscuity.
If you are dating and having sex with a person in our culture it is presumed that there is emotional involvement. It will be left unspoken too.
He is making up excuses for why it's other person's fault for being too involved, not speaking clearly etc etc. I do not think he is aware of his own intentions, there might be some tricks his subconscious is playing with his rational mind.
As someone who did have casual sex, I don't see it as competing with having a family. There are two ways I experienced.
The first was mutual attraction without any emotional attachments. It wasn't that different from playing a game together. We respected each others autonomy, wanted to make the experience enjoyable to each other, but we didn't expect or want anything beyond that.
The other time, I was friends with my sexual partner and his boyfriend who are in an open relationship. While there was no romantic love, we would not have done it if we felt that the whole thing was causing an issue. While the sex was something we desired, the friendship and respect to their relationship was way more important.
What I learned for me is that just having sex with an attractive stranger doesn't do much for me as I felt too interchangable. There was no emotional injury, it just felt hollow. Even if there is no romantic love, there needs to be the kind of love that makes you want to make this particular person happy.
Contra is a Grade A modern sophist, guilty of all the disingenuous he accuses his political opponents of.
I'm glad you could at least tease out his hypocrisy, which may be worth giving him a platform.
The other issue with the prostitution point is that prostitution is and continues to be stigmatised pretty heavily, so in the same way as you could legally have had sex pre-marriage before, it was a massive social stigma.
This was wonderful, and I thoroughly enjoy both of your works.
About the birthrate thing, why should we Europeans be forced to have a lot of children because we need to replace the baby boom behemoth? What is inherently virtuous about having lots of kids? It's too late to catch the financial gut punch that those people being old is going to give us, so why breed for the sake of it? What is better about there being 10 billion people as opposed to 5?
Absolutely nothing is better about it. The more we progress the more ideal it is for every individual to let humans depopulate themselves.
Dont know about having a lots of kids, but I think that being opened to have kids and to raise them is virtuous.
I agree with parts of that I suppose. I just don't see why it ought to be imposed.
Charity is virtuous, yet we don't feel the need to tell people that their lack of spending on charity is ruining society. And as far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to raise children, don't because you'll probably pump out emotionally neglected basket cases.
I guess, if it has some negative effects, then probably people will mention that and try to fix it.
What I said previously has nothing to do with imposing, it states that it is virtuous to be opened to have kids and raise them.
I am well aware of the problems of an ageing population, but at least in my country it is too late to solve the issue. The old people that are now old will be a burden on younger generations now and if we have a new birthing boom it won't be in time to help shoulder the burden.
If anything a panicked babyboom 2 might just reproduce this problem in a century. So we'll have to weather the storm of paying for all these people's care and try not to be too outwardly pleased when they all die.
Are there any other issues with an ageing population that I'm missing out on? Maybe I'm not well informed enough on the subject of demographics. Or is there a problem unrelated to the social safety net?
This was great, and the last ten minutes highlight the crux of the problem
"Casual sex" (and women's right to "choice" etc., presupposing that social life is like standing in a supermarket and choosing between this or that product) is just the extension of the global market into private life, where the norms of purely transactional interactions dominate. Defending it would in a reasonable world be recognised as the opposite of leftism, since it means defending naked capital-dominance over all aspects of human life. All casual sex, use-and-throw-away of human beings, is rape. It is considering another human being only in terms of your pleasure.
Leftists today don't love freedom, they just hate culture.
@@omi691 its degenerate and disgusting to have casual sex.
@@omi691 that is a prime reason why most marriages fail these days. Heathens and devils marrying. And it mostly affects women.
@@omi691 hhaaha good because about a year ago i also had similar opinions as you did.
@@omi691 Yeah im glad i found someone else that escaped the degenerate liberal rabbit hole.
Contrapoint seems uninformed on just about any relevant fact, relying entirely on unsubtantiated pre-suppositions.... He makes the exact same false point after 1:20:13 that was utterly debunked over an hour earlier: Sigh.
29:00 You think one of the most paternally invested species on the planet is biologically predisposed to abandon their children? I think your assumptions are inaccurate.
FishBallista r/K selection theory points out there can be variance in human mating strategies. Not everyone, everywhere, all the time is just one kind of "genetic human." Environment affects the expression of different gene sets allowing different behaviors to propagate, i.e. paternal investment. Some human groups are more selected for lower number of children / higher investment in each child strategies.
Yes definitely. Good nuance. Fathers are definitely predisposed to investing heavily in their children's upbringing but that amount is definitely going to vary based on environment. It's wrong to say that men are predisposed to abandoning their children since the usual evolutionary best strategy seems to have been/be heavy paternal investment.
You can make a good synthesis from the two statements as well. It wouldn't be a stretch to argue that high paternal investment and traditionally families carry extreme legal and fiscal penalties, reducing the desire for many to take that strategy to begin with.
I personally think the single-mother problem has to do in part with the expense of a two-parent household, and the advent of the housing crash, coupled with how custody laws work.
Which is why women should opt out of work
Contraception is why we are in this mess, we've made women into sterile automatons that fail at being women and can never truly be men
@@ep_med7822 Yah and stay at home.
Gosh, i need to hear more leftists/progressives talking with sane conservatives like you. Need to break out of the echo chamber. Thank you so much for ypur perspective.
But seeing your more recent videos, its sad to see. A drift away from a point of understanding to a 'war' footing. Perhaps i expected too much from consrrvatism.
What do you mean? The war footing owes entirely to de-platforming and banning from the left. You think that I am the one who doesn’t want to talk to people like ContraPoints?
@@TheDistributist Ok. Is this about a specific incident/s? Perhaps I'm ignorant of those, on account of previously mentioned echo chamber. Mind directing me to these incidents or videos concerning them?
@@Loquification Deplatforming? I mean just examine the fate of James Alsup.
@@TheDistributist It seems like this Jame Allsup was a qhite supremacist who associated with white supremecists and advocated for more white supremecists in his government. That seems to be a justified reason to drplatform from private platforms. His publicly elected office has been curtailed but not elimintaed which also seems appropriate.
This doesn't seem to be from the left, but decisions from corporations and public bodies that dont want to associate with white supremacists.
I respect both speakers. In the end I think the distributionist had the better of contrapoints because of the difficulty distinguishing Roosh V from sex-positive feminism on principled grounds.
More like ContraTruth... This person is willfully blind
Historically, small frontier town in the West were full of bordellos. A town of 3000 people might have 12 of them. The claim by dist that prior to the sexual revolution it was difficult to have sex outside of marriage needs a cite in my opinion
And it was understood you were taking a serious risk of dying of Syphilis if you did that.
loved it but the ending seemed rushed. didn't let Contra return the kind words. not a complaint, just fiendly pointing it out :)
PUAs are a neglible amount of men in these modern days of courtship. Mgtow as well. Small Exceptions don't prove the rule.
Andrew Penny
have they made an impact on culture? or can they be seen as an accelerated extreme of cultural change? not necessarily something that has lasting change, but that is a result of a larger, but less than noticeable change (due to scale).
The distributist unironically sounds more feminine than ‘Natalie’
lol, ContraPoints on suicide watch
@@TheDistributist stating the obvious
I don't know if you get to this point (I'm around min 47), but if sex is just any other act or commodity why does it matter if it's more respectful, etc, etc? In what basis are your making sex more "special" than anything else?
Haha love this. Both great content providers
You both agree that men aren’t entitled to sex, but then at around the hour mark you both seem to implicitly assume women are entitled to marriage and children. Why the double standard?
Very coy. I can't tell whether the host would throw me:
a) a match-making party
b) respect when earned/disapproval when deserved
c) into prison
d) off a rooftop or
e) into the Underworld
Is the Distributist:
a.) a Russian Babushka?
b.) a Victorian Gentleman of High-society?
c.) an unforgiving judge with a roving commission?
d.) a member of ISIS?
e.) the God Hades?
f.) all of the above?
.....
Hey, I was nice - I left out conversion camp. I already defeated that fate worse than death. Others, it seems, have not been so lucky, perhaps.
Victorians make me think of Ned Carson and the Wilde trials. Ah, the joys of being prosecuted by an old friend.
conversion camp is worse than death? Man, no wonder so many in the Gay movement see Christianity as worse than Radical Islam!
I don't, actually. I'm just giving you my impression of what it felt like at the time. (To be clear, I meant orientation, not faith.) It may have been a necessary way of thinking to defeat the attempted conversion, that dying would be better than letting them win. I do think there's a legitimate case to be made for the position, as at least that way one would avoid hurting innocent people.
Your comparison seems unfair; isn't attempting to enforce conversion on an unwilling victim a radical version of any ideology? Besides, I'd call my would-have-been converters Radical Homophobes.
My paradigm: Radical Islam(ism) wants to throw me off a building. Moderate Islam wants Radical Islam to throw me off a building, or at least keeps supporting them. The Christian(ist) equivalent, rather less deadly, is that the radicals (or extremists, if that's a better term) want to throw me into prison. The moderates are the ones who whisper, "We're Not All Like That," to us, but they keep voting for the ones who are.
I don't object to being described as a GRA, but my only movement is to to free the G from LBT. Bi women and the trans folk are firmly in control of the alphabet soup, and, even when I support them, I don't want their agenda to be presented in my name.
The Distributist is a retired Hades, blending in with mortals, who was so nihilistic after decades in Victorian High Society that he became a Soviet Gulag judge, occasionally pulling double duty as a babushka for the locals, before resigning himself to life as a free-lance contractor for Islamic terror groups.
Obviously.
Contra points was disgusting then and disgusting now
Nobody ever brings up how in hunter-gatherer tribes, chimpanzees, etc. casual (gay) sex is for improving social bonding. Using the argument of "man being hedonistic in his natural state" ignores the fact that the current market of casual sex is very different than how it works in a small tribal community.
Wow, that was rally good.
More plz.
Also some more constructive criticism, the guest seems have these notions of what's good yet he doesn't seem to have a background on which to fall on these beliefs. Like when he talks about consent and Rush V's supposed dogged behavior towards women. This is so baffling to live a sexual revolution lifestyle then shame someone for attracting as many suitors as possible.
The silent blue guy at the end really stole the show.
I'm really, really looking forward to hearing someone who isn't a MGTOW accurately representing MGTOW.
Well, let's hear it.
FishBallista I tried too on one of his debates. Every MGTOW that's been on here has been very lack luster. It's not a hard idea to get across.
The trouble is that MGTOW speak in a way that non-MGTOW don't understand. There are premises that each accept that change the meaning of what is being said by each so that they talk past each other.
+jared sandoy I've copied this comment from elsewhere in this comment section.
1:24:00
I didn't think you would make this admission so explicit but you're
right. That's exactly what a MGTOW would say. Finally someone gets it
right. They would say that you have accepted the premise that women are
the gatekeepers and tempo setters of relationships and now that they are
completely sexually liberated they are setting a tempo that most men
don't want. Then there is you asking "why don't the men just dance to
this new tempo?" Men don't want to.
@FishB Thank you. Right on.
the issue for the distributist is manifestly down to feminism. Before the sexual revolution, women had no choice but to marry, and thus marriage rates were higher and women had to settle more. Is that good? I don't think so.
I don't know. Things didn't really turn until the early 60s. Middle-class women were hardly being forced into marriages circa 1946.
not technically forced, but before the 1970's it was much more difficult to be a self-sufficient woman, and I won't bore you with spelling out exactly what they were.
casual sex raises men's mate value. casual sex lowers women's mate value. feminism seeks to change this biological reality through culture. can it be done? i guess we'll find out.
not to women, I don't like it but they are a wretched maniform
Men who sleep around do not reek of desperation, which women in general, whether they admit it or not, find way more repulsive. There are exceptions of course.
FRIENDED FOREVER wrong, no women wants to be with he man that fucked 50 women. Man whores and players are only cool to jealous, lonely men. The kind that read pick up artist books, you know fuckboys? Lol
Jen.. it seems you have supported his claim by pointing out that the desperately lonely men have lower desirability than the man whore. You placed them as the only people looking up to the fuckboys; inadvertently describing a hierarchy.. im sure we agree those are both unhealthy extremes and therefore of limited use, except as low resolution descriptors.
So how exactly are men supposed to sleep around and act promiscuous when women aren't? The men sleeping with each other?
"I'm going mostly by literary examples"
A far more interesting discussion than I anticipated. Contrapoints is still a Moron, but far more literate than I expected.
did you delete my comments (even though you responded to them) x) ?
certainly not intentionally, I don't delete comments.
oh, sorry, i just checked the other video you have with contra, they're there.. lol.. i know i wrote something about sexuality so i assumed there were here..
33:43 what did Contra say?
Truly the battle of lisps
Cool
Contrapoints does credit to hir alma mater by acknowledging Catholics as a minority among US Christians and not requiring Distributist to first argue its status among the various divergent forms of the Jesus Movement.
11:02 Men and women don't both want to pair up with someone who is equal. Women want to pair up with someone who is better.
FishBallista Pre-sexual revolution, women essentially didn't have much of a choice but to marry a man of roughly equal social status to them. This kept female hypergamy in check. Thus, in the age of free sex, low status men have been left out in the cold.
I don't know, you'll find in the American West and in other places where women were greatly outnumbered By men, low status men were also at a colossal reproductive disadvantage. You must also keep in mind that the staggering maternity death rates kept many well off men looking for a new a wife. It's kinda always sucked to be a male low on the totem pole.
i think the effect was decreased, but by no means do i think that it wasn't present. i think women have always had unrealistic demands in a mate since the dawn of time. i don't think that quality is new and i think that it has always been far stronger in women. i only think it slightly decreased it.
+jared sandoy Yet low status men continued to work towards achieving a family or at least children because there was actually a light at the end of the tunnel. What they were working for existed measurably and could be achieved even if it was unlikely.
Now there is no expectation that marriage will provide any of the benefits to men that it used to. There is no reason to get married if you're male and want a family. It doesn't provide a guarantee of a family or even a reasonable certainty of one. Couple that with uncertain stimuli producing greater stress and pleasure responses than predictable stimuli and you have a recipe for utter avoidance of marriage and family by men.
Women have asked or tacitly accepted such an imbalance of power in their favor that it is a deal men are rejecting in favor of sort of black market relationships which are harming men, women and society. Disempower women in marriages and create an expectation of reasonable certainty of a family from marriage for both halves of the relationship and men will use marriage again.
yeah. they worked toward the light at the end of the tunnel because the decrease i mentioned was sufficient to make getting a woman reasonably possible. not a woman on your level of attraction, but a woman. even back then you were INSANELY unlikely to get a women in your own league.
That's a man baby
Serious question - given overall global population figures, why is below replacement in 'the west' inherently a problem?
if you care about the west, yes
plus there is the whole question of sustainability.
The question was why? There's 8 billion humans on the planet right now, and that number is still increasing. Why should I be worried about lower birthrates in the richest nations on the planet? Again, honest question - it clearly concerns you, and I'd be interested in seeing the working behind it.
skype me some time modern.distributist
Off the top of my head, I can give you one problem.
The west has aging societies which entails a steady rise in the population of elderly retirees who depend on the working age population for social services. A birth rate that is significantly below replacement level - which the west on a whole is currently experiencing - eventually leads to the shrinkage in the working age population (the population that supports the previously mentioned population). That puts an increasing financial burden on a population that won't be able to carry that burden indefinitely . Unless you're in favor of gutting social services or killing off all the elderly - and I would presume you're probably not for either proposal - then you might consider this as a cause for concern. There's a reason why western governments - and even non-western governments experiencing low fertility rates - provide financial benefits to parents that have two or more children.